Nitric oxide added to the sweep gas of the oxygenator during cardiopulmonary bypass in infants: A pilot randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to assess the effect of nitric oxide added to the sweep gas of the oxygenator during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in infants on platelet count, platelet function, clinical outcomes, and safety. A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial in infants less than a year of age undergoing cardiac surgery requiring CPB was undertaken. Nitric oxide at a dose of 20 ppm was added to the sweep gas in the treatment group. Blood was collected at baseline and prior to separation from CPB to measure platelet count and function as determined by responsiveness to specific agonists. Clinical outcomes were observed through hospital discharge. Methemoglobin levels were measured preoperatively, at the conclusion of CPB, and upon admission to the ICU. Forty patients consented and were randomized in the trial. Eighteen patients were randomized to the treatment group and 22 were included in the placebo group. The groups were similar in terms of age, weight, gender, and surgical complexity. No significant differences were found in measures of platelet count, platelet response to agonist, or clinical outcomes. Patients in the treatment group had higher methemoglobin levels after receiving nitric oxide, but no levels approached toxicity (maximum 2.4%). Nitric oxide added to the sweep gas of the oxygenator during CPB in infants did not have an appreciable effect on the preservation of platelet count, platelet responsiveness to agonist, or clinical outcomes. Methemoglobin levels were increased after receiving nitric oxide but were far below a toxic level of 15%.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".