MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3144078497 · doi:10.1002/ppul.25383

Prediction of extubation readiness using lung ultrasound in preterm infants

2021· article· en· W3144078497 on OpenAlexaff
Reem M. Soliman, Yasser Elsayed, Reem N. Said, Abdulaziz M. Abdulbaqi, Rania H. Hashem, Hany Aly

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Pulmonology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReceiver operating characteristicProspective cohort studyLung ultrasoundUltrasoundLungArea under the curveGestationInterventricular septumBronchopulmonary dysplasiaPulmonary arteryLung diseaseCardiologyAnesthesiaGestational ageInternal medicinePregnancyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We aimed to test the hypothesis that a lung ultrasound severity score (LUS) and assessment of left ventricular eccentricity index of the interventricular septum (LVEI) by focused heart ultrasound can predict extubation success in mechanically ventilated infants. We conducted a prospective study on premature infants less than 34 weeks' of gestation. LUS was performed on postnatal Days 3 and 7 by an investigator who was masked to infants' ventilator parameters. LVEI and pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) were measured at postnatal Day 3. A receiver operator curve was constructed to assess the ability to predict extubation success. Spearman correlation was performed between LVEI and PAP. A total of 104 studies were performed to 66 infants; of them 39 had mild and 65 had moderate-severe lung disease. LUS predicted extubation success with a sensitivity and a specificity of 91% and 69%, respectively. Area under the curve was 0.83 (CI: 0.75-0.91). LVEI did not differ between infants that succeeded and failed extubation. It correlated with PAP during systole (r = .66). We conclude that LUS predicts extubation success in mechanically ventilated preterm infants whereas LVEI correlates with high PAP.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.285 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations33
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric PulmonologySame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207