Lung function in infants and young children with chronic lung disease of infancy: The next steps?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past year, a series of papers have reviewed the literature concerning assessment and interpretation of lung function in infants and young children with chronic lung disease of infancy. This manuscript, which represents the final paper in that series, summarizes the findings to date and highlights key areas for future research. Despite the huge literature in this field, interpretation of results and their use in guiding clinical management are still limited by difficulties in 'normalizing data' according to body size and maturation and selection of appropriate control groups. Furthermore, sensitive tests that more closely reflect the underlying pathophysiology of 'new' bronchopulmonary dysplasia, together with simple and reliable methods of assessing lung maturity at birth and true oxygen requirements at specified time points are urgently required. Research in this field is also challenged by the need to separate the independent effects of genetic predisposition, gene-environment interactions, preterm delivery, neonatal respiratory disorders and various treatment strategies on the growing lung. The extent to which disruption of lung growth following premature exposure to the extra-uterine environment leads to an earlier or more aggravated decline in respiratory function in later adult life remains to be elucidated. Whatever its origin, given the increasing survival of smaller and more immature infants, the long term sequelae of neonatal lung disease, are likely to continue to change, requiring ongoing, carefully designed longitudinal studies. Future research strategies need to encompass a multicenter, multi-disciplinary, collaborative approach with closer links between clinicians and basic scientists, to ensure that the most relevant research questions are addressed using appropriate methodology and that findings are implemented into clinical practice in a more timely fashion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".