Trends and Variations in the Use of Inhaled Nitric Oxide in Preterm Infants in Canadian Neonatal Intensive Care Units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To determine the proportion of infants who receive inhaled nitric oxide (iNO), and to characterize the variations in its use by gestational age (GA) and center in infants <34 weeks' gestation. Design Retrospective analysis was performed in infants born at <34 weeks' gestation and admitted to neonatal intensive care units participating in the Canadian Neonatal Network between January 2010 and December 2013. Results Of 19,525 infants, 831 (4.2%) received iNO. A total of 369 infants (44%) received iNO during the first 2 days after birth. The proportion of neonates who received iNO in the 22 to 25, 26 to 29, and 30 to 33 weeks' GA groups was 16.1, 6.0, and 1.3%, respectively. Infants in whom iNO was initiated in the first 2 days of age received it for a shorter duration (median, 3 days; interquartile range [IQR], 2-5) as compared with those who started after 2 days (median, 5 days; IQR, 2-11). The use of iNO varied by center, ranging from 0 to 15.5% (p < 0.001). Conclusion Out of every 25 infants born at <34 weeks' gestation in Canada received iNO, with the highest rate of use in infants born at lower gestation. Further research to identify reasoning, efficacy, and safety of iNO in preterm infants is warranted.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".