Nitric oxide inhalations in bronchiolitis: A pilot, randomized, double‐blinded, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim The aims of this pilot study were to determine safety, tolerability (primary outcome) and efficacy (secondary outcome) of high‐dose inhaled nitric oxide for the treatment of infants with moderately severe bronchiolitis. Methods This was a pilot, double‐blinded, randomized controlled study (phase IIa). Intermittent inhalations of nitric oxide 160 ppm for 30 min or oxygen/air (control) were given 5 times/day to hospitalized infants (2–11 months) with acute bronchiolitis. Oxygen saturation, methemoglobin, and nitric dioxide (NO2) levels and vital signs were monitored. Results Forty‐three infants were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were comparable in both study groups. Mean clinical score, comprised of four components: respiratory rate, use of accessory muscles, wheezes and crackles, and % room‐air oxygen saturation, was 7.86 (±1.1) and 8.09 (±1.2) in the NO and control groups, respectively, consistent with moderate severity. The overall frequency of adverse events was similar between the groups. Repeated nitric oxide inhalations did not result in increased inhaled NO2 levels or cumulative effect on methemoglobin levels. Secondary outcomes of efficacy were measured by length of hospitalization (LOS) in hours: LOS did not differ between groups. However, in a post‐hoc analysis of a subgroup of infants hospitalized for >24 h (n = 24), the median LOS was shorter in the nitric oxide (41.9 h) than in the control group (62.5 h) (P = 0.014). Conclusion Our study was unable to detect a difference in side effects using intermittent high‐dose nitric‐oxide inhalation or supportive treatment alone, in infants with moderate bronchiolitis. Preliminary efficacy outcomes are encouraging.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".