Use of combination therapy with acetaminophen and ibuprofen for closure of the patent ductus arteriosus in preterm neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare effectiveness and safety of combination therapy (acetaminophen and ibuprofen) to monotherapy (ibuprofen, indomethacin, or acetaminophen alone) in treatment of the patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in premature neonates. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of neonates admitted to a tertiary-level neonatal intensive care unit. Included neonates were born at <32 weeks gestation and received pharmacotherapy for PDA closure. Based on the primary therapy received, our cohort was divided into the following four groups: indomethacin alone, ibuprofen alone, acetaminophen alone, and ibuprofen and acetaminophen (in combination). Baseline characteristics, effectiveness, safety, neonatal mortality, and morbidities rates between these groups were compared. RESULTS: One hundred and forty neonates were analyzed; 17 received combination therapy, and 123 neonates received monotherapy: 22 (17.9%) ibuprofen, 29 (23.6%) acetaminophen, and 72 (58.5%) indomethacin. The PDA closure rates were 41.7% for indomethacin, 41.2% for combination therapy, 37.9% for acetaminophen, and 31.8% for ibuprofen (P=0.100). Rates of adverse effects were comparable between the groups. CONCLUSION: The rate of ductal closure was not different between combination therapy and monotherapy. The study did not demonstrate any increased adverse effects in the combination group. Future well-designed prospective clinical trials are needed to guide clinical practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".