Current Practices and Attitudes Regarding Use of Inhaled Nitric Oxide in the NICU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Excessive supplemental oxygen exposure in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) can be associated with oxygen-related toxicities, which can lead to negative clinical consequences. Use of inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) can be a successful strategy for avoiding hyperoxia in the NICU. iNO selectively produces pulmonary vasodilation and has been shown to improve oxygenation parameters across the spectrum of disease severity, from mild to very severe, in neonates with hypoxic respiratory failure associated with persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn. PURPOSE: An online survey was conducted among members of the National Association of Neonatal Nurse Practitioners to gain insight into the level of understanding and knowledge among neonatal nurse practitioners (NNPs) about optimizing supplemental oxygen exposure and the use of iNO in the NICU setting. RESULTS: Of 937 NNP respondents, 51% reported that their healthcare team typically waits until the fraction of inspired oxygen level is 0.9 or more before adding iNO in patients not responding to oxygen ventilation alone. Among respondents with 1 or more iNO-treated patients per month, only 35% reported they know the oxygenation index level at which iNO should be initiated. Less than 20% of NNPs reported perceived benefits associated with early initiation of iNO for preventing progression to use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or reducing the length of hospital stay, and about one-third of respondents reported they believe early iNO use minimizes hyperoxia. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: More education is needed for NNPs regarding the negative effects of oxidative stress in neonates. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Additional clinical trials investigating the most beneficial strategies for avoiding neonatal hyperoxia are warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".