100: Utilization of Surfactant in the Era of Non-Invasive Ventilation in Canadian Nicus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surfactant therapy has been a major breakthrough in the care of preterm infants. Early evidence on timing of administration favored a prophylactic approach, necessitating endotracheal mechanical ventilation (EMV). More recently there has been a concerted effort to avoid EMV in order to reduce bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). The impact of this paradigm shift as it relates to timing of surfactant administration and outcomes are as yet unknown. To compare a) the rate of prophylactic (within 15 minutes of birth) and rescue (after 15 minutes of birth) surfactant administration and b) short-term outcomes of all infants <29 weeks GA during two study epochs [2005–2008 vs. 2010–2013]. Data from the Canadian Neonatal Network were retrospectively reviewed for all infants <29 weeks GA during the two epochs. Data were analyzed using χ2 test for categorical data and Student's t test or Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for continuous data. 3980 and 5137 infants respectively were included in the two epochs, after excluding palliative cases, outborn infants and those with major congenital anomalies. Maternal and neonatal characteristics were statistically significantly different between the two epochs for: use of antenatal corticosteroids (90.9% vs. 92.9%), diabetes (6.5% vs. 8.5%), chorioamnionitis (21.3% vs. 28.2%), GA (26.3 + 1.5 vs. 26.2 + 1.5 weeks) and male sex (51.7% vs. 54.6%). Results for surfactant utilization, timing of administration and short-term outcomes are presented below. Surfactant administration rate was similar in the two epochs. In the more recent epoch later surfactant administration time and reduced use of multiple doses was associated with decreased duration of EMV and BPD and NI rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".