MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792885399 · doi:10.1097/mop.0000000000000613

Novel therapeutics for bronchopulmonary dysplasia

2018· review· en· W2792885399 on OpenAlexaff
Lannae Strueby, Bernard Thébaud

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Pediatrics · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBronchopulmonary dysplasiaIntensive care medicineClinical trialContext (archaeology)BudesonideAsthmaInternal medicinePregnancyGestational age

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review provides a concise summary of recent literature pertaining to emerging therapies for bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). To provide context for the presented therapies, a brief overview of recently proposed changes to the definition of BPD and the concept of expanded respiratory outcomes is included. RECENT FINDINGS: New or redefined respiratory outcomes are required to improve accuracy in evaluating new therapies and correlating results with long-term clinical outcomes of importance. Dexamethasone is no longer the only steroid-based therapy showing promise for impacting BPD. Early trials indicate hydrocortisone, inhaled budesonide, and a budesonide-surfactant combination may be of benefit to preterm infants. Additionally, simple approaches like increasing utilization of mother's own milk may deserve more emphasis. Of significant interest is the traction stem cell therapies are acquiring as one of the more anticipated treatments for BPD. A new preclinical meta-analysis demonstrates the benefits of mesenchymal stromal cell therapy in animal models while the results of early clinical trials remain eagerly awaited. SUMMARY: BPD continues to be the most frequently occurring significant morbidity for extremely preterm infants, yet highly effective therapies remain elusive. Promising new treatments are on the horizon, but only continued efforts to complete well-designed clinical trials will determine the true impact of these emerging therapies.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.332
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PediatricsSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207