MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Continuous neurally adjusted ventilation: a feasibility study in preterm infants

2020· article· en· W3015534499 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie-Eve Rochon, Gregory A. Lodygensky, Laurence Tabone, Sandrine Essouri, Sylvain Morneau, Christer A. Sinderby, Jennifer Beck, Guillaume Émériaud

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood Fetal & Neonatal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVentilation (architecture)Noninvasive ventilationMechanical ventilationHigh-frequency ventilationAnesthesiaPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility and tolerance of NeuroPAP, a new non-invasive ventilation mode which continuously adjusts (during both inspiration and expiration) the pressure support proportionally to the diaphragm electrical activity (Edi), in preterm infants and to evaluate the impact on ventilation pressure and Edi. DESIGN: Prospective cross-over single-centre feasibility study. SETTING: One level 3 neonatal intensive care unit in Canada. PATIENTS: Stable preterm infants ventilated with non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV). INTERVENTIONS: 0 (60 min), in continuous positive airway pressure (15 min) and again in NIPPV (30 min). Main outcome measures included tolerance, ventilation pressure, Edi and patient-ventilator synchrony. RESULTS: Twenty infants born at 28.0±1.0 weeks were included. NeuroPAP was well tolerated and could be delivered during 100% of planned period. During NeuroPAP, the PEEP was continuously adjusted proportionally to tonic diaphragm Edi, although the average PEEP value was similar to the set minimal pressure. During NeuroPAP, 83 (78-86)% breaths were well synchronised vs 9 (6-12)% breaths during NIPPV (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: NeuroPAP is feasible and well tolerated in stable preterm infants, and it allows transient adaptation in PEEP in response to tonic diaphragm electrical activity changes. Further studies are warranted to determine the impact of these findings on clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02480205.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in Childhood Fetal & NeonatalSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207