Neural breathing pattern in newborn infants pre‐ and postextubation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe the neural breathing pattern before and after extubation in newborn infants. METHODS: Prospective, observational study. In infants deemed ready for extubation, the diaphragm electrical activity (EAdi) was continuously recorded from 30 minute before to two hours after extubation. RESULTS: Total of 25 neonates underwent 29 extubations; 10 extubations resulted in re-intubation within 72 hours. Postextubation, there was an increase in peak EAdi (EAdi-max) and EAdi-delta (peak minus minimum EAdi) in both groups. The pre- to postextubation change in EAdi-max (8.9-11.1 μv) and EAdi-delta (6-8 μv) was less in the failure group in comparison with the change in EAdi-max (10.2-13.4 μv) and EAdi-delta (6.3-10.6 μv) in the success group, (p = 0.02 and 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: In our neonatal cohort, extubation failure was associated with a smaller increase in peak and delta EAdi after extubation. If confirmed, these findings indicate an important cause of extubation failure in preterm infants.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".