Surfactant phospholipids and surface activity among preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome who develop bronchopulmonary dysplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to determine if preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome who develop bronchopulmonary dysplasia have abnormalities in surfactant phospholipids and/or function. Tracheal aspirate samples obtained from preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome on days 1, 3-5, 7-10, 14-17, 21-24 and 27-30 were analyzed for total phospholipids and phospholipids fractions by determination of total phospholipid phosphorus and thin layer chromatography, respectively. Surfactant properties were assessed with captive bubble surfactometer. Sixteen out of 56 (29%) infants died during the first 30 d of life. Infants who died were more immature, required more ventilatory support and had a surfactant with lower surface-tension-reducing properties than infants who survived (p < 0.05). Surviving infants were divided into group I (no bronchopulmonary dysplasia at 27-30 d, n = 25) and group II (with bronchopulmonary dysplasia at 27-30 d, n = 15). No significant differences in concentrations of surfactant phospholipids nor measurements of surface tension were noted among groups of infants. Surfactant therapy after birth was associated with a significant increase in concentrations of total phospholipids, lecithin, phosphatidylinositol and lower surface-tension measurements at 3-5 d of age among surviving infants (p < 0.01). Abnormalities in concentrations of surfactant phospholipids or surfactant function could not be demonstrated during the first month of life among preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome who develop bronchopulmonary dysplasia.
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 | 0.001 | 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".