Survey of noninvasive respiratory support practices in Canadian neonatal intensive care units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
目的 评估加拿大新生儿重症监护病房(neonatal intensive care unit，NICU)使用无创呼吸支持(noninvasive respiratory support，NRS)的临床差异。 方法 一项网络调查发送给所有参与加拿大新生儿网络的30家三级NICU的研究者。调查5种常用NRS模式的使用情况。此外，确定当地指南存在(与否)及其依从性。描述性分析确定临床应用的差异。 结果 30个三级NICU中的28(93%)家回应了调查。持续正压通气(continuous positive airway pressure，CPAP)被普遍采用(100%)。89%的NICU使用高流量鼻塞(high-flow nasal cannula，HFNC)，使用双水平CPAP的79%，鼻塞间歇正压通气(nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation，NIPPV)的54%，而18%的单位使用鼻高频通气。只有61%的NRS使用符合当地指南，而HFNC(36%)最低。所有NRS模式的设备和接口使用都有很大的空间。 结论 加拿大的NICU中NRS的使用差异显著。需要进一步研究并评估这个差异和肺部结果的关系，以确定最优的NRS策略。
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".