Use and outcomes of long-term noninvasive ventilation for infants
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the clinical characteristics, technology and outcomes between infants and older children using long-term NIV.METHODS: In this 10-year retrospective review, 120 infants were matched to 240 older children in a 1:2 ratio based on sex and closest date of NIV initiation. Medical charts and sleep laboratory records were reviewed to extract demographic, NIV technology, polysomnography and clinic outcome data.RESULTS: The results demonstrate a greater proportion of cardiorespiratory disease [16% vs. 6%, OR 3.04 (95% CI 1.47 to 6.31)] and a lower proportion of upper airway disorders [46% vs. 60%, OR 0.56 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.87)] in infants compared to older children. Infants had more comorbidities [4.0 (IQR 3.0) vs. 3.0 (IQR 2.0), p < 0.001] and used more additional technology [36% vs. 16%, OR 2.88 (1.73 to 4.78)] than older children. Improvements in respiratory parameters and NIV adherence were similar between groups. While NIV clinic discharge rates were similar, the reason for discharge differed with infants primarily ceasing NIV due to improvements in the underlying disease condition [42% vs. 30%, OR 2.04 (1.04 to 4.03)] or switching to invasive mechanical ventilation [10% vs. 1%, OR 11.43 (1.34 to 97.47)] while older children transferred to other services [9% vs. 35%, OR 0.17 (0.06 to 0.46)].CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest infants are a distinct group with respect to NIV therapy and support the need for modifications in the approach to long-term NIV use in infants.
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.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it