MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2762848041 · doi:10.1093/pch/19.6.e35-75

77: Reduction of Noise in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Using Sound-Activated Noise Alarms

2014· article· en· W2762848041 on OpenAlexaff
Dan-hua Wang, Cheryl Aubertin, Nicholas Barrowman, Katherine Moreau, Sandra Dunn, JoAnn Harrold

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsAgricultural Research Institute of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeonatal intensive care unitSound (geography)Noise (video)ALARMQUIETSound level meterMedicineAudiologyAuditAcousticsComputer scienceNoise levelEngineeringPediatricsArtificial intelligenceHearing lossBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sound levels in neonatal intensive care units (NICU) often exceed recommendations. An adverse sound environment may have harmful effects on newborns. Previous studies have explored strategies to reduce sound levels in the NICU but few have focused on direct audit and feedback methods. To determine if the use of noise alarms, providing direct audit and feedback, reduces sound levels in a level 3 NICU. SoundEar® noise alarms were installed in each of three patient care areas (blue, yellow and green pod) and at a central desk area in a level 3 NICU. The alarms continuous measured sound levels and provided direct audit and feedback. Above a set threshold the alarm displayed red, within 5 dB the alarm displayed yellow and at more than five dB below threshold the alarms displayed green. Sound levels were measured for two months with the noise alarms visible but not providing any direct audit and feedback (i.e. always displaying red). The threshold was then set to 50 dB, a level which (based on previous data) could discriminate quiet from noisy periods in our NICU. Sound data was collected for another two months. Data was adjusted for measures of unit activity. The adjusted sound levels pre and post direct audit and feedback were compared. The percent of measured sound levels below 45 dB, 50 dB and 55 dB post intervention and the difference from pre-intervention are shown below in Table 1. The largest effect was a statistically significant increase in the percentage of sound levels below 50 dB in all three patient care areas. The desk area did not show a change. The percentage of time where sound levels were below 45 dB and 55 dB was also not significantly altered by direct audit and feedback. Noise alarms providing direct audit and feedback seem effective in reducing sound levels in patient care areas. Conversations may have moved to non-patient care areas, preventing a similar change there. The time below 45 dB did not change likely due to non-modifiable background noise levels. The lack of effect for 55 dB is possibly due to the unit being below this threshold the majority of the time pre-intervention.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicInfant Development and Preterm Care→French-language works237,207→