Efficacy of inhaled nitric oxide in neonates with hypoxic respiratory failure and pulmonary hypertension: the Japanese experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze data from a registry of Japanese neonates with hypoxic respiratory failure associated with pulmonary hypertension (PH) to compare the effectiveness of inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) in neonates born <34 weeks vs. ≥34 weeks gestational age (GA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: iNO was administered according to approved Japanese product labeling. Study data were collected before iNO administration and at predefined intervals until discontinuation. RESULTS: A total of 1,114 neonates were included (n=431, <34 weeks GA; n=675, ≥34 weeks GA; n=8, missing age data). Mean decrease from baseline oxygenation index (OI) was similar in both age groups. OI reduction was more pronounced in the <34 weeks subgroups with baseline OI ≥25. Survival rates were similar in the <34 weeks GA and ≥34 weeks GA groups stratified by baseline OI (OI<15, 89% vs. 93%; 15≤OI<25, 85% vs. 91%; 25≤OI≤40, 73% vs. 79%; OI>40, 64% vs. 66%). CONCLUSION: iNO improved oxygenation in preterm neonates as effectively as in late preterm and term neonates, without negative impact on survival. If clinically significant PH is present, as measured by pulse oximetry or echocardiography, a therapeutic trial of iNO might be indicated for preterm neonates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".