Oxygen Saturation Targets for Extremely Preterm Infants after the NeOProM Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five randomized controlled trials comparing lower (85-89%) versus higher (91-95%) pulse oximeter saturation (SpO2) targets for extremely preterm infants have now been reported from the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. These trials included more than 4,800 infants, and they provide robust evidence to permit comparison of these target ranges and consider the next steps for clinicians and researchers. The lower SpO2 range was associated with a significant increase in the risk of death. There was no significant difference between the two target ranges in the rate of disability at 18-24 months, including blindness. A significant difference between groups in the risk of the composite primary outcome of death or disability in favour of the higher SpO2 range was mainly attributable to the difference between groups in the risk of death. The lower target range did not reduce bronchopulmonary dysplasia or severe visual impairment, but it did increase the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis requiring surgery or causing death. The trials provide no reason to prefer SpO2 targets below 90% and indicate the importance of more trials to see if a further survival advantage can be identified. The safety of targets above 95% has not been evaluated. The five trials were designed to be similar to facilitate an individual patient data meta-analysis, and this Neonatal Oxygen Prospective Meta-Analysis (NeOProM) may provide further insights.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".