Inhaled nitric oxide therapy in acute bronchiolitis: A multicenter randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Currently, there are no approved treatments for infants with acute bronchiolitis, the leading cause for hospitalization of infants worldwide, and thus the recommended approach is supportive. Inhaled Nitric oxide (iNO), possesses anti-viral properties, improves oxygenation, and was shown to be safe in infants with respiratory conditions. Hospitalized infants with acute bronchiolitis were therefore recruited to a prospective double-blinded, multi-center, randomized controlled pilot study. They received intermittent high dose iNO (160 ppm) plus oxygen/air for 30 min or oxygen/air alone (control), five times/day, up to 5 days. Sixty-nine infants were enrolled. No difference was observed in frequencies of subjects with at least one Adverse Event (AE) in iNO (44.1%) vs. control (55.9%); neither was Methemoglobin >7% safety threshold. No drug-related serious AEs (SAEs) were reported. Analysis of Per-Protocol population revealed that length of stay (LOS), time to SpO2 ≥92%, and time to mTal clinical score ≤5 improved by 26.7 ± 12.7 (Welch’s t-test p = 0.04), 20.8 ± 8.9 (p = 0.023), and 14.6 ± 9.1 (p = 0.118) hours, respectively, in the iNO group compared to the control. Overall, high dose iNO (160ppm) was safe, well-tolerated, reduced LOS and showed rapid improvement of oxygen saturation, compared to the standard therapy. Further investigation in larger cohorts is warranted to validate these encouraging efficacy outcomes. (Trial registration: NCT03053388)
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".