A Novel Prototype Neonatal Resuscitator That Controls Tidal Volume and Ventilation Rate: A Comparative Study of Mask Ventilation in a Newborn Manikin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this randomized controlled manikin trial was to examine tidal volume (VT) delivery and ventilation rate during mask positive pressure ventilation (PPV) with five different devices, including a volume-controlled prototype Next StepTM device for neonatal resuscitation. We hypothesized that VT and rate would be closest to target with the Next StepTM. Twenty-five Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) providers provided mask PPV to a newborn manikin (simulated weight 1kg) in a randomized order with: a self-inflating bag (SIB), a disposable T-piece, a non-disposable T-piece, a stand-alone resuscitation system T-piece, and the Next StepTM. All T-pieces used a peak inflation pressure of 20cmH2O and a positive end-expiratory pressure of 5cmH2O. The participants were instructed to deliver a 5mL/kg VT (rate 40-60min-1) for 1min with each device and each of three test lungs with increasing compliance of 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0mL/cmH2O. VT and ventilation rate were compared between devices and compliance levels (linear mixed model). All devices, except the Next StepTM delivered a too high VT, up to six-fold the target at the 2.0mL/cmH2O compliance. The Next StepTM VT was 26% lower than the target in the low compliance. The ventilation rate was within target with the Next StepTM and SIB, and slightly lower with the T-pieces. In conclusion, routinely used newborn resuscitators over delivered VT, whereas the Next StepTM under delivered in the low compliant test lung. The SIB had higher VT and rate than the T-pieces. More research is needed on volume-controlled delivery room ventilation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".