MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2762463546 · doi:10.1093/pch/9.suppl_a.29ab

34 Risk Factors Associated with Respiratory Distress (RD) in Term Neonates with and Without Air Leak: A Case Controlled Quality Assurance Study

2004· article· en· W2762463546 on OpenAlexaff
B. Hayes, Melissa Mirosh, N Payton, Koravangattu Sankaran

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanRoyal University Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRespiratory distressGestational agePediatricsMechanical ventilationObstetricsMeconium aspiration syndromePregnancyMeconiumAnesthesiaFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perinatal and neonatal risk factors associated with air leak syndrome in term neonates (≥37 wk) have not been extensively studied. Furthermore, it has been difficult to differentiate air leak syndromes from other respiratory problems on clinical presentation and examination. We sought to investigate this issue with a view to identifying risk factors specific to air leak syndromes. During a two year period (January 2000 to December 2002) neonatal and maternal case records of inborn infants presenting with respiratory distress and air leak were reviewed. These infants were matched with another group of infants with similar presentation without air leak using parameters of birthweight (gms), gender and gestational age (wks). Maternal data included age, parity, type and duration of delivery, pregnancy and labor complications, nature of induction and presence of meconium in amniotic fluid. Infant data collected were: attendance of NICU staff at delivery, need for and description of resuscitation, the type of air leak, need for mechanical ventilation, use of tracheal toilet and direct admission to the NICU from the labor suite Vs later admission from the newborn nursery. The burden of illness was assessed using length of stay in the NICU, number of x-rays performed and number of doses of antibiotics administered. Statistical analysis was carried out using parametric and non-parametric T test where applicable. A value of P<.05 was used for significance. The data below is presented in two groups, those with air leak and those without using Mean ± 2 S.D. There was 27 infants in each group. The following maternal characteristics were significantly different, length of rupture of membranes 1158±60 min Vs 879± 55 min (P<.01), length of first stage of labor 694±45 min Vs 472±35 min (P<.01) and length of second stage of labor 95±10 min Vs 73±13 min (P<.05). All other maternal data among the two groups were similar. 2 infants in the air leak group required needle aspiration, a single infant was mechanically ventilated, and 2 infants required the insertion of chest drains. There were 13 infants with right pneumothoraces, 11 with left pneumothoraces, 3 with bilateral air leaks and 2 infants with mediastinal air. The average number of chest x-rays in the air leak group was 3.2±1 Vs 1±0.2 in the RD group without air leak (P<.001). The average length of stay in the NICU for the air leak group was 3±0.5 days Vs 2.25±0.2 days in the non-air leak group (P<.01). 24 infants in the air leak group received more than 4 doses of antibiotics compared to 10 infants in the RD group (P<.05). All other infant data collected were not significantly different between the two groups. Term infants who developed air leaks were subjected to a longer period of rupture of membranes prior to labor as well as a longer duration of labor. The burden of illness was significantly higher for those infants who developed air leaks. Speculation: Perinatal rather than postnatal factors appear to be more important in the development of air leak syndromes in term 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research→French-language works237,207→