Positive airway pressure levels and pneumothorax: a case–control study in very low birth weight infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the incidence of pneumothorax (PTx) and the levels of positive airway pressure (Paw) applied to very low birth weight infants during the first 5 days of life (DOL), after evidence-based protocols using early continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high levels of Paw (CPAP or mean airway pressure) were implemented. METHODS: From 2004 to 2007, all infants submitted to assisted ventilation that developed PTx were identified. Controls were matched by birth weight, gestational age, and type of ventilatory support. Paw levels were averaged on a time-weighted basis. A p value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 25 infants developed PTx (3.8%); 23 during the first 5 DOL. PTx was diagnosed at 14 h of life (1.3-80 h) when 74% were treated with mechanical ventilation. In controls, Paw decreased over time whereas in PTx infants it did not decline until after 80 h. PTx infants had an increase in Paw from 12 h up to 6 h prior to the diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The rate of PTx was low even after the implementation of the protocols. An association between Paw levels and PTx was observed but until the precise time of onset of a PTx can be determined this should be regarded either as an early signal or as an indicator of more severe lung disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".