Need for an International Consensus on the Definition of Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
respiratory failure and parenchymal lung disease.Few clinicians would question the fact that an infant who requires 50% oxygen has worse lung function than one who is receiving 25% oxygen to maintain normal arterial oxygenation.Before concluding that the need for oxygen at 36 weeks postmenstrual age is not informative about the severity of lung disease or long-term morbidities, we need to thoroughly evaluate the association between different fractions of inspired oxygen and long-term respiratory or neurologic outcomes while adjusting for other confounding factors.Another limitation of the proposed definition is that it is based on a one-time assessment.In this situation, a preterm infant who exhibits acute respiratory deterioration at approximately 36 weeks and needs mechanical ventilation would be labeled as having severe BPD even if his or her lungs were normal.This limitation can be easily avoided by including an indicator of the chronicity of the parenchymal lung disease.Although the proposed definition may work in a large population base and predict long-term outcomes, it will not always reflect the severity of lung disease and therefore will not be appropriate for research or benchmarking focused on pulmonary outcomes.Although most clinicians would agree that more contemporary definitions of BPD are necessary, these definitions must be based on the premise that BPD is secondary to chronic parenchymal lung disease.Therefore, any definition of BPD, whether based on diagnostic or therapeutic criteria, should reflect the severity of lung disease and exclude nonpulmonary indications for respiratory support.The proposed definition, though marginally better at predicting outcomes, will not consistently meet the challenge of defining BPD.
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 | 0.079 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
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".