MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007181014 · doi:10.4187/respcare.07257

Work of Breathing in Premature Neonates: Noninvasive Neurally-Adjusted Ventilatory Assist versus Noninvasive Ventilation

2020· article· en· W3007181014 on OpenAlexaff
David N. Matlock, Shasha Bai, Michael D. Weisner, Norman Comtois, Jennifer Beck, Christer Sinderby, Sherry E. Courtney

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Care · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersChildren’s Hospital of Wisconsin Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineNoninvasive ventilationVentilation (architecture)Work of breathingAnesthesiaBreathingIntensive care medicineMechanical ventilation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We tested whether work of breathing in premature newborns estimated by phase angle (θ) by using respiratory inductance plethysmography is decreased during neurally-adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) noninvasive ventilation (NIV) versus NIV alone. METHODS: NAVA NIV and NIV were applied in random order while using respiratory inductance plethysmography to measure the phase angle. RESULTS: Patient-ventilator asynchrony was decreased during NAVA NIV; however, the phase angle was not different between the modes. A large number of repeated assists with switches to backup were found when using NAVA NIV. Results of the analysis indicated these were due to the apnea alarm limit set during NAVA NIV. CONCLUSIONS: The improvement in patient-ventilator synchrony supports the hypothesis that work of breathing may be decreased with NAVA NIV; however, we were unable to demonstrate this with our study design. Short apnea time settings with NAVA NIV led to a large number of switches to backup and repeated assists during the same neural effort. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02788110.).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespiratory CareSame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207