MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

171 Nippv Does not Reduce Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia (Bpd) or Death in Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants - A Randomised Trial

2012· article· en· W2106158839 on OpenAlexaff
David Millar, Haresh Kirpalani, Brigitte Lemyre, Brad Yoder, Aaron Chiu, Robin Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBronchopulmonary dysplasiaGestational agePediatricsBirth weightIntubationContinuous positive airway pressureRandomized controlled trialLow birth weightNeonatal intensive care unitAnesthesiaSurgeryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Standard care of preterm infants includes nCPAP & NIPPV. We compared rates of BPD or death in a randomised trial of NIPPV or nCPAP. Methods Eligible infants were preterm, birth weight < 1000g; requiring either (i) non-invasive respiratory support within first seven days, “no intubation/early extubation group”, or (ii) were < 28 days at first extubation - “prior intubation”. Central block randomisation to NIPPV or nCPAP was conducted via the web. Primary outcome was a composite of death (prior to 36 weeks’ gestational age [GA]) or BPD at 36 weeks’ GA: defined as requiring ventilation; FiO2 > 30%; or positive oxygen reduction test (ORT). Sample size 1000 (β 80%; 2-tailed α 5%) to demonstrate 20% reduction in primary outcome. Results 36 international sites enrolled 1007 infants. Observed rates of BPD or death were similar in the two groups. BPD outcome, in the 21 infants with no ORT, assessed by clinical definition of oxygen at 36 weeks’ GA: no alteration in treatment differences. Conclusions In infants < 1000g NIPPV does not confer further benefit nor risk for survival free of BPD at 36 weeks’ GA compared to nCPAP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in ChildhoodSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207