Noninvasive respiratory support for neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Noninvasive respiratory support for neonates is growing in popularity as clinicians increasingly recognize the dangers of prolonged invasive ventilation. The purpose of this review is to critically evaluate the existing evidence for safety and efficacy of these modes of respiratory support in neonates. RECENT FINDINGS: In recent years, multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated several modes of noninvasive support, most importantly nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation and high flow nasal cannulae, in comparison to the standard therapy of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). The three largest RCTs were recently published in 2013. One demonstrated no difference in death or survival with bronchopulmonary dysplasia between nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation and CPAP, both when used as primary support and as postextubation support. Two others demonstrated that high flow nasal cannulae are noninferior to or no better than CPAP when used to support preterm infants after extubation. These trials showed no serious safety concerns with current modalities. SUMMARY: The optimal forms of noninvasive respiratory support for neonates remain to be determined. Continued evaluation of these technologies with large, well-designed RCTs is warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".