Long-term non-invasive ventilation therapies in children: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-term non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is a common modality of breathing support used for a range of sleep and respiratory disorders. The aim of this scoping review was to provide a summary of the literature relevant to long-term NIV use in children. We used systematic methodology to identify 11,581 studies with final inclusion of 289. We identified 76 terms referring to NIV; the most common term was NIV (22%). Study design characteristics were most often single center (84%), observational (63%), and retrospective (54%). NIV use was reported for 73 medical conditions with obstructive sleep apnea and spinal muscular atrophy as the most common conditions. Descriptive data, including NIV incidence (61%) and patient characteristics (51%), were most commonly reported. Outcomes from sleep studies were reported in 27% of studies followed by outcomes on reduction in respiratory morbidity in 19%. Adverse events and adherence were reported in 20% and 26% of articles respectively. Authors reported positive conclusions for 73% of articles. Long-term use of NIV has been documented in a large variety of pediatric patient groups with studies of lower methodological quality. While there are considerable data for the most common conditions, there are fewer data to support NIV use for many additional conditions.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".