MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2401383835

Noninvasive respiratory support in neonates: a brief review.

2012· article· en· W2401383835 on OpenAlexaff
Koravangattu Sankaran, Manna Adegbite

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContinuous positive airway pressureMedicineIntensive care medicineIntubationPositive pressureMechanical ventilationVentilation (architecture)AirwayIntermittent mandatory ventilationPositive airway pressureAnesthesiaObstructive sleep apnea
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the era of gentle ventilation and open lung strategy noninvasive ventilatory support in neonates has gained momentum and its use in nurseries around the world is also increased. This paper reviews various modalities of non-invasive respiratory support in some details and its relevance in the recent evidence based use. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a mode of ventilatory assistance in which positive pressure is delivered to the airway throughout the respiratory cycle. It is also referred to as continuous distending pressure (CDP) or positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) when applied through a ventilator along with intermittent mandatory ventilation (IMV). It has been proven over the years to be an effective mode of ventilatory support and as such has gained widespread use in the management of a variety of neonatal respiratory diseases. It is relatively cheap and easy to apply and certainly feasible for routine use in underdeveloped world. Besides improving oxygenation CPAP often functions as an airway stabilizer of the trachea thus helping to decrease the frequency of neonatal apneas, particularly the obstructive variety. There is good to fair quality supportive evidence from several studies that the use of primary CPAP can reduce the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation in infants less than 32 weeks gestation. In this review, we will attempt to describe different delivery devices and pressure generating systems and discuss different ways in which CPAP can be applied. Although it is unclear that primary use of CPAP can reduce overall neonatal mortality and morbidity it is becoming increasingly clear that early CPAP use is less invasive, baby friendly and decreases the need and frequency of the use of surfactants. Besides, clinical indications for CPAP, its advantages and limitations will also be explored. CPAP adjuncts such as nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and infant flow driver will also be discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research→French-language works237,207→