Oxygen and preterm infant resuscitation: what else do we need to know?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To evaluate current evidence for the use of lower or higher oxygen strategies for preterm infant resuscitation RECENT FINDINGS: The equipoise for using higher fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) (>0.4) to initiate preterm infant respiratory stabilization has been lost. Recent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials assessing outcomes after using higher (FiO2 ≥ 0.6) vs. lower (FiO2 ≤ 0.3) oxygen strategies to initiate preterm resuscitation shows no difference in the rates of death or major morbidities. However, not achieving pulse oximetry saturations of at least 80% by 5 min of age, whether it was due to iatrogenic oxygen insufficiency or poor infant pulmonary function, was associated with lower heart rates (mean difference -8.37, 95% confidence interval: -15.73, -1.01) and major intraventricular hemorrhage. There remains scarce neurodevelopmental data in this area and information about the impact of oxygen targeting strategies in low resourced areas. These knowledge gaps are research priorities that must be addressed in large, well designed randomized controlled trials. SUMMARY: Most clinicians now use lower oxygen strategies to initiate respiratory support for all infants, including preterm infants with significant lung disease. However, the impact of such strategies, particularly for neurodevelopmental outcomes and for lower resourced areas, remains uncertain and must be urgently addressed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".