Early Use of Inhaled Nitric Oxide in Preterm Infants: Is there a Rationale for Selective Approach?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is being increasingly used in preterm infants < 34 weeks with hypoxemic respiratory failure (HRF) and/or pulmonary hypertension (PH). Objective To evaluate the risk factors, survival characteristics, and lung histopathology in preterm infants with PH/HRF. Methods Retrospective chart review was conducted to determine characteristics of 93 preterm infants treated with iNO in the first 28 days and compared with 930 matched controls. Factors associated with survival with preterm HRF and smooth muscle actin from nine autopsies were evaluated. Results Preterm neonates treated with iNO had a higher incidence of preterm prolonged rupture of membrane (pPROM ≥ 18 hours), oligohydramnios and delivered by C-section. In infants treated with iNO, antenatal steroids (odds ratio [OR],3.7; confidence interval [CI], 1.2–11.3; p = 0.02), pPROM (OR, 1.001; CI, 1.0–1.004; p = 0.3), and oxygenation response to iNO (OR, 3.7; CI, 1.08–13.1; p = 0.037) were associated with survival. Thirteen infants with all three characteristics had 100% (13/13) survival without severe intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH)/periventricular leukomalacia (PVL) compared with 48% survival (12/25, p = 0.004) and 16% severe IVH/PVL without any of these factors. Severity of HRF correlated with increased smooth muscle in pulmonary vasculature. Conclusion Preterm infants with HRF exposed to antenatal steroids and pPROM had improved oxygenation with iNO and survival without severe IVH/PVL. Precisely targeting this subset may be beneficial in future trials of iNO.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".