Oxygen Saturation Targets in Preterm Infants and Outcomes at 18–24 Months: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The optimal oxygen saturation target for extremely preterm infants remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence evaluating the effect of lower (85%–89%) versus higher (91%–95%) pulse oxygen saturation (Spo2) target on mortality and neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI) at 18 to 24 months. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and all published randomized trials evaluating lower versus higher Spo2 target in preterm infants. STUDY SELECTION: A total of 2896 relevant citations were identified; 5 trials were included in the final analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Data from 5 trials were analyzed for quality of evidence and risk of bias. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include heterogeneity in age at enrollment and comorbidities between trials and change in oximeter algorithm midway through 3 trials. RESULTS: There was no difference in the incidence of primary outcome (death/NDI at 18–24 months) in the 2 groups; risk ratio,1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.98–1.12, P = .18. Mortality before 18 to 24 months was higher in the lower-target group (risk ratio,1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.03–1.31, P = .02). Rates of NDI and severe visual loss did not differ between the 2 groups. Proportion of time infants spent outside the target range while on supplemental oxygen ranged from 8.2% to 27.4% <85% and 8.1% to 22.4% >95% with significant overlap between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in primary outcome between the 2 Spo2 target groups. The collective data suggest that risks associated with restricting the upper Spo2 target limit to 89% outweigh the benefits. The quality of evidence was moderate. We speculate that a wider target range (lower alarm limit, 89% and upper, 96%) may increase time spent within range, but the safety profile of this approach remains to be determined.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".