MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hypotension in Preterm Infants (HIP) randomised trial

2021· article· en· W3133064690 on OpenAlexaffabout
Eugene Dempsey, Keith J. Barrington, Neil Marlow, Colm Patrick Finbarr O’Donnell, Jan Miletín, Gunnar Naulaers, Po‐Yin Cheung, J D Corcoran, Afif El‐Khuffash, Geraldine B. Boylan, Vicki Livingstone, Gérard Pons, Jozef Macko, David Van Laere, Hana Wiedermannová, Zbyněk Straňák

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood Fetal & Neonatal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersFP7 HealthNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineGestational ageGestationPlaceboRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaIntraventricular hemorrhageBolus (digestion)Blood pressurePediatricsSurgeryInternal medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether restricting the use of inotrope after diagnosis of low blood pressure (BP) in the first 72 hours of life affects survival without significant brain injury at 36 weeks of postmenstrual age (PMA) in infants born before 28 weeks of gestation. DESIGN: Double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial. Caregivers were masked to group assignment. SETTING: 10 sites across Europe and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Infants born before 28 weeks of gestation were eligible if they had an invasive mean BP less than their gestational age that persisted for ≥15 min in the first 72 hours of life and a cerebral ultrasound free of significant (≥ grade 3) intraventricular haemorrhage. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to saline bolus followed by either a dopamine infusion (standard management) or placebo (5% dextrose) infusion (restrictive management). PRIMARY OUTCOME: Survival to 36 weeks of PMA without severe brain injury. RESULTS: The trial terminated early due to significant enrolment issues (7.7% of planned recruitment). 58 infants were enrolled between February 2015 and September 2017. The two groups were well matched for baseline variables. In the standard group, 18/29 (62%) achieved the primary outcome compared with 20/29 (69%) in the restrictive group (p=0.58). Additional treatments for low BP were used less frequently in the standard arm (11/29 (38%) vs 19/29 (66%), p=0.038). CONCLUSION: Though this study lacked power, we did not detect major differences in clinical outcomes between standard or restrictive approach to treatment. These results will inform future studies in this area. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01482559, EudraCT 2010-023988-17.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations71
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in Childhood Fetal & NeonatalSame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207