A comparison of bilevel and ventilator-delivered non-invasive respiratory support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the rates of death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in infants who received nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) delivered by a conventional mechanical ventilator (CMV) or a bilevel device. DESIGN: A preplanned non-randomised comparison of infants randomised to the NIPPV arm of the NIPPV trial. SETTING: Thirty-six tertiary neonatal units in three continents. PATIENTS: Infants <1000 g and <30 weeks gestational age at birth. INTERVENTIONS: Infants received treatment with CMV NIPPV or bilevel NIPPV, as a primary mode of respiratory support or following first extubation. RESULTS: 241 received mainly bilevel NIPPV and 215 mainly CMV NIPPV. No difference was found in death or BPD at 36 weeks corrected age (adjusted OR 0.88 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.35)). More deaths occurred in infants receiving bilevel NIPPV (9.4%) than in CMV NIPPV (2.3%) (adjusted OR 5.01: 95% CI 1.74 to 14.4). There was a corresponding but not statistically significant decrease in BPD in the bilevel NIPPV group (30% vs 37%) (adjusted OR 0.64 (95% CI 0.41 to 1.02)). No difference was observed in extubation failure or age at last extubation. A post hoc test of interaction between device type and synchronisation was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe a statistically significant difference in the composite outcome of death or BPD between infants who received mostly bilevel NIPPV compared with mostly CMV NIPPV. Differences in component outcomes of morbidity and BPD may be due to the competing nature of these outcomes or differences in baseline characteristics of infants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00433212.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".