Prone versus Supine Position for Lung Ultrasound in Neonates with Respiratory Distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To study the feasibility of lung ultrasound (LUS) in prone position and to compare it with supine position in neonates with respiratory distress. Study Design Neonates ≥ 29 weeks of gestational age with respiratory distress requiring respiratory support within first 12 hours of life were enrolled prospectively. First LUS (fLUS) was done in the position infant was nursed (supine or prone), infant’s position changed, a second LUS (sLUS) was performed immediately and a third LUS (tLUS) was done 1 to 2 hours later. Primary outcome was the comparison of LUS scores (LUSsc) between fLUS and sLUS. Results Sixty-four neonates were enrolled. Common respiratory diagnoses were transient tachypnea of newborn (TTN; 53%) and respiratory distress syndrome (RDS; 41%). LUSsc was different between fLUS and sLUS (fLUSsc 6 [interquatile range: 4, 7] vs. sLUSsc 7 [4, 10], p < 0.001), while there was no difference between the fLUS and tLUS (fLUSsc 6 [4, 7] vs. tLUSsc 5 [3, 7], p = 0.43). Subgroup analysis confirmed similar findings in neonates with TTN, while in babies with RDS, all the three LUSsc were similar. Conclusion LUS is feasible in prone position in neonates. LUS scores were higher immediately after a change in position but were similar to baseline 1 hour after the change in position.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".