Effect of oxygen saturation targets on the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia and duration of respiratory supports in extremely preterm infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent clinical practice changes in neonatal care resulted in higher, narrower oxygen saturation target ranges for preterm infants. The effect of targeting higher or lower oxygen saturations on respiratory outcomes of preterm infants and duration of hospitalization has not been extensively reviewed in the context of current care, but could have significant implications. METHODS: A multicentre retrospective cohort of 145 preterm infants was conducted; 105 had lower oxygen saturation targets (88 to 92%), 40 had higher targets (90 to 95%). The primary outcome was bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). Secondary outcomes included duration of invasive/noninvasive respiratory support, oxygen therapy, and hospitalization. The primary outcome was compared using Fisher's exact test. Secondary outcomes were evaluated with survival analysis and Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: The difference in incidence of BPD in the lower (N=56, 53.3%) and higher saturation groups (N=14, 35.0%) was not statistically significant (relative risk [RR]=0.66 [0.41, 1.04], P=0.06). The difference in duration of mechanical ventilation in the lower (median 7.8 days, interquartile range [IQR] 3.7 to 15.9) and higher saturation groups (median 4.5, IQR 1.9 to 12.3) approached statistical significance (P=0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the durations of other respiratory supports or hospital stay between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study approached statistical significance and suggest that higher, narrower oxygen saturation targets may result in a clinically important reduction in BPD incidence and duration of mechanical ventilation. These results require validation in a larger sample to refine optimal targets.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".