MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2190347595 · doi:10.1002/ppul.23353

Domiciliary noninvasive positive airway pressure therapy in children

2015· review· en· W2190347595 on OpenAlex
Reshma Amin, Suhail Al‐Saleh, Indra Narang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Pulmonology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonologistsPositive airway pressureIntensive care medicineHypoventilationObstructive sleep apneaAirwayPediatricsContinuous positive airway pressurePositive pressureSurgeryRespiratory systemAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been a dramatic increase in the past few decades in the number of children receiving noninvasive positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy at home. Although PAP therapy was first prescribed for children with obstructive sleep apnea, the indications have rapidly widened to include treatment for central hypoventilation syndromes, neuromuscular and chest wall disorders as well as primary respiratory diseases. Given the rapidly expanding use of PAP therapy in children, pediatric pulmonologists need to be familiar with the indications, technical and safety considerations as well as potential complications and challenges that may arise when caring for children using PAP therapy. This review article covers the definition of PAP therapy, modes, interfaces, devices, indications, contraindications, suggested settings, complications as well as the factors influencing the adherence.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it