Sleeping position, oxygen saturation and lung volume in convalescent, prematurely born infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the effects of sleeping position on lung volume and oxygenation are influenced by postmenstrual age (PMA) and oxygen dependency in convalescent prematurely born infants. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Tertiary neonatal unit. PATIENTS: 41 infants (21 oxygen dependent), median gestational age 28 weeks (range 24-31 weeks) and birth weight 1120 g (range 556-1780 g). INTERVENTION: Infants were studied both supine and prone at two-weekly intervals from 32 weeks' PMA until discharge. Each posture was maintained for 1 h. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pulse oximeter oxygen saturation (Spo(2)) was monitored continuously, and at the end of each hourly period functional residual capacity (FRC) was measured. RESULTS: Overall, lung volumes were higher in the prone position throughout the study period; there was no significant effect of PMA on lung volumes. Overall, Spo(2) was higher in the prone position (p = 0.02), and the effect was significant in the oxygen-dependent infants (p = 0.03) (mean difference in Spo(2) between prone and supine was 1.02%, 95% CI 0.11% to 1.92%), but not in the non-oxygen-dependent infants. There was no significant influence of PMA on Spo(2). CONCLUSION: In the present study, prone sleeping did not improve oxygenation in prematurely born infants, 32 weeks' PMA or older and with no ongoing respiratory problems. However, the infants were monitored in each position for an hour, thus it is recommended that oxygen saturation should continue to be monitored after 32 weeks' PMA to be certain that longer periods of supine sleeping are not associated with loss of lung volume and hypoxaemia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".