High continuous positive airway pressure in neonates: A physiological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective We sought to evaluate physiological cardiorespiratory implications of high pressures (>8 cmH 2 O) on continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in preterm neonates. Methods Fifteen preterm neonates at postmenstrual age ≥32 weeks on CPAP 5 cmH 2 O were enrolled. Pressures were increased by 2 cmH 2 O increments until 13 cmH 2 O. At each increment, cardiac output, electrical diaphragmatic (Edi) activity, and clinical cardiorespiratory parameters were measured. Predefined cut‐off values for changes in cardiorespiratory parameters were used as termination criteria. Data, presented as mean (SD), were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance. Results The mean GA, age at study, and weight of subjects were 27.4 (2.6) weeks, 58.5 (35.5) days, and 2.3 (0.6) kg, respectively. The median (IQR) time at each CPAP increment was 10 (5, 20) min. Cardiac output (mL/kg/min) at 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13 cmH 2 O were not different at 295 (75), 290 (66), 281 (69), 286 (73), and 292 (58), respectively ( P = 0.99). Edi values demonstrated a trend towards decline at 9 cmH 2 O before rising again. No other cardiorespiratory parameter was different across CPAP levels; no subject met termination criteria. Conclusion High CPAP levels were well tolerated for short durations. Further physiological and clinical research is required on safety/efficacy in neonates with more severe lung disease, as well as its impact over longer durations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".