Randomized Trial Comparing 3 Approaches to the Initial Respiratory Management of Preterm Neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We designed a multicenter randomized trial to compare 3 approaches to the initial respiratory management of preterm neonates: prophylactic surfactant followed by a period of mechanical ventilation (prophylactic surfactant [PS]); prophylactic surfactant with rapid extubation to bubble nasal continuous positive airway pressure (intubate-surfactant-extubate [ISX]) or initial management with bubble continuous positive airway pressure and selective surfactant treatment (nCPAP). DESIGN/METHODS: Neonates born at 26 0/7 to 29 6/7 weeks' gestation were enrolled at participating Vermont Oxford Network centers and randomly assigned to PS, ISX, or nCPAP groups before delivery. Primary outcome was the incidence of death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age. RESULTS: 648 infants enrolled at 27 centers. The study was halted before the desired sample size was reached because of declining enrollment. When compared with the PS group, the relative risk of BPD or death was 0.78 (95% confidence interval: 0.59-1.03) for the ISX group and 0.83 (95% confidence interval: 0.64-1.09) for the nCPAP group. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality or other complications of prematurity. In the nCPAP group, 48% were managed without intubation and ventilation, and 54% without surfactant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Preterm neonates were initially managed with either nCPAP or PS with rapid extubation to nCPAP had similar clinical outcomes to those treated with PS followed by a period of mechanical ventilation. An approach that uses early nCPAP leads to a reduction in the number of infants who are intubated and given surfactant.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".