A comparison of invasive and noninvasive ventilation in children less than 1 year of age: A long‐term follow‐up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We report on the long-term survival of children initiated on invasive and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NiPPV) before the age of 1 to assess the safety and efficacy of long-term ventilation at home. METHODS: A chart review was performed of children initiated on long-term home mechanical ventilation (LTHV) before the age of 1 year, at The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids), Canada, between January 1991 and April 2014. RESULTS: We report on 51 children. Twenty-five children (49%) received NiPPV and 26 (51%) received invasive mechanical ventilation via tracheostomy (IMV). There was one NiPPV initiation between 1991 and 2001, the rest were in subsequent years. Most children had a "musculoskeletal disorder" in the NiPPV cohort, n = 14 (56%) and a "central nervous system" disorder in the IMV cohort, n = 13 (50%). The pCO2 improved with the initiation of NiPPV, P = < 0.0001. Of the 25 subjects initiated on NiPPV, eight (32%) are currently being followed as compared to 22 (84%) in the IMV cohort. Seven (28%) of the NiPPV group were weaned off ventilation as compared to three (11.5%) in the IMV cohort. There were two NiPPV treatment failures. There were more deaths in the NiPPV cohort: eight (32%) versus two (7.6%) in the IMV cohort. Four of the deaths in the NiPPV cohort were in children in whom a palliative approach was taken. None were due to NiPPV technical failure. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this long-term follow-up study, NiPPV use in infants appears to be a viable long-term ventilation strategy.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".