Effect of nasal continuous or intermittent positive airway pressure on nonnutritive swallowing in the newborn lamb
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was aimed at investigating the effects of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP; 6 cmH2O) or intermittent positive pressure ventilation (nIPPV; 10/4 cmH2O) on nonnutritive swallowing (NNS) and on the coordination between NNS and phases of the respiratory cycle, while taking into account the potential effects of states of alertness. Twelve full-term lambs were chronically instrumented at 48 h after birth for polysomnographic recordings, including NNS, diaphragm electromyographic activity, respiratory movements, pulse oximetry, and states of alertness. Studies in control conditions, with nCPAP and nIPPV, were performed in random order in nonsedated lambs at 4, 5, and 6 days of life. Results demonstrate that nCPAP significantly decreased overall NNS frequency, more specifically isolated NNS during quiet sleep and bursts of NNS in active sleep. In comparison, the effects of nIPPV on NNS frequency were more variable, with an inhibition of NNS only in wakefulness and an increase in isolated NNS frequency in active sleep. In addition, neither nCPAP nor nIPPV disrupted the coordination between NNS and phases of the respiratory cycle. In conclusion, nCPAP inhibits NNS occurrence in newborn lambs. Clinical relevance of this novel finding is related to the importance of NNS for clearing the upper airways from secretions and gastric content frequently regurgitated in the neonatal period.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".