LEVEL OF POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE AND THE OCCURENCE OF PNEUMOTHORAX IN VERY LOW BIRTHWEIGHT INFANTS: A CASE–CONTROL STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Positive airway pressure (PAWP) is considered an important risk factor in the development of a pneumothorax in very low birthweight (VLBW) infants. The aim of this study was to determine the differences in PAWP levels between infants who developed a pneumothorax compared with controls. Methods From April 2004 to 2007 we identified 25 VLBW infants with pneumothorax. A chart review was performed on 23 infants in whom the onset occurred during the first 7 days of life and randomly paired and matched them with a control group for a similar birthweight, gestational age, and type of ventilatory support up to the day the pneumothorax occurred. The PAWP were averaged on a time-weighted basis every 6 h during the first 120 h of life and more frequently before the onset of pneumothorax. Results Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. The median age of onset was 14.5 h (range 1.25–273). There was a difference between the groups in the decline of PAWP during the first 14 h of life (p Conclusion Pneumothoraces were associated with higher PAWP and there was a statistically significant difference in the PAWP decline between the groups over time. The PAWP trend was notably higher before pneumothorax onset.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".