Survey of noninvasive respiratory support practices in Canadian neonatal intensive care units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate practice variation with respect to noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) use across Canadian neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). METHODS: A web-based survey was sent to all site investigators of the 30 level 3 NICUs participating in the Canadian Neonatal Network. The survey inquired about the use of five commonly described NRS modes. In addition, the presence and adherence to local guidelines were ascertained. Descriptive analyses were performed to identify variations in practice. RESULTS: In total, 28 (93%) of the 30 tertiary NICUs responded to the survey. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was employed universally (100%). High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) was used in 89% of NICUs, biphasic CPAP in 79% and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in 54%, and nasal high-frequency ventilation was used in 18% of units. Only 61% of all NRS use was guided by local policies, with the lowest being for HFNC (36%). There was a wide range of settings employed and interfaces used for all NRS modes. CONCLUSION: There are significant practice variations in NRS use across Canadian NICUs. Further research is needed to evaluate the significance in relation to pulmonary outcomes to determine optimal NRS strategies.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".