MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neonatal lung ultrasonography to evaluate need for surfactant or mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W2953763544 on OpenAlex
Abdul Razak, Maher Faden

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood Fetal & Neonatal · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMechanical ventilationMeta-analysisRespiratory distressContext (archaeology)Continuous positive airway pressureCochrane LibraryLungCINAHLInternal medicineIntensive care medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context Lung ultrasonography (LUS) is increasingly used to identify various neonatal respiratory disorders. There is emerging evidence that it can identify infants with significant lung disease who need surfactant treatment or mechanical ventilation. Objective To systematically review the accuracy of LUS in determining the need for surfactant treatment or mechanical ventilation in infants with respiratory distress treated with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP). Methods Database search include EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL and Cochrane central from inception until 17 October 2018. Included is diagnostic accuracy studies reporting LUS evaluating surfactant therapy/mechanical ventilation. Two authors extracted data independently and assessed quality. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool was used to determine the methodological quality. Results Six studies involving 485 infants included in the review. Three studies used LUS score, two used type 1 lung profile, and one used high-risk LUS to evaluate the outcome. The pooled sensitivity and specificity at LUS score cut-off >5–6 was 88% (95% CI 80% to 93%) and 82% (95% CI 74% to 89%), respectively. Infants with LUS score >5–6 were at significantly increased risk of surfactant treatment compared with infants with LUS score <5–6 (relative risk=7.51; 95% CI 4.16 to 13.58; two studies; participants=189; I 2 =0%). The diagnostic accuracy of type 1 lung profile was better in younger preterm infants (sensitivity 88.9%, specificity 100%) compared with late preterm and term infants (sensitivity 100%, specificity 28%). Conclusions LUS, particularly LUS score, can be used accurately to determine the need for surfactant replacement treatment or mechanical ventilation in infants with respiratory distress treated with NCPAP support. The accuracy is better in younger preterm infants compared with late preterm and term infants. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018115135.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it