Variability of respiratory parameters and extubation readiness in ventilated neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) has been used to guide suitability of extubation in VLBW infants. Respiratory variability (RV) has been used to assess extubation readiness in adults but was never investigated in preterms. The combination of a SBT and RV may further improve prediction of successful extubation. STUDY DESIGN: Using data previously collected during the SBT, the following respiratory variables were analysed: inspiratory time (T(I)), expiratory time (T(E)), T(I)/total breath time, tidal volume (V(T)) and mean inspiratory flow (V(T)/T(I)). RV was quantified using time-domain analysis for each respiratory variable and expressed as a variability index (VI). The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) of the SBT, each VI and combined SBT+VI were calculated. Extubation failure was defined as need of re-intubation within 72 h. RESULTS: A total of 44 infants were included. Successfully (n=36) and unsuccessfully (n=8) extubated infants had similar baseline characteristics and number of breaths analysed. VI for V(T)/T(I)was significantly decreased in the failure group. The combination of the SBT and VI of either T(I)or V(T)were the most accurate predictors of successful extubation with a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 75% and a PPV and NPV for extubation success of 95% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A significant decrease in V(T)/T(I)variability occurred in infants requiring re-intubation. The combination of a SBT failure and decreased variability in T(I)or V(T)was highly predictive of failure. This combination is promising but requires prospective evaluation in a larger population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".