Comparison of High CPAP versus NIPPV in Preterm Neonates: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes following receipt of high continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) versus nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in extremely preterm neonates. STUDY DESIGN: O) or NIPPV. Primary outcome was failure of high CPAP or NIPPV within 7 days, as determined by either need for intubation or use of an alternate noninvasive mode. RESULTS: During the 3-year study period, 53 infants received high CPAP, while 119 patients received NIPPV. There were no differences in the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio 1.21; 95% confidence interval 0.49-3.01). The use of alternate mode of noninvasive support was higher with the use of high CPAP but no other outcome differences were noted. CONCLUSION: Based on this cohort, there was no difference in incidence of failure between high CPAP and NIPPV, although infants receiving high CPAP were more likely to require an alternate mode of noninvasive support. KEY POINTS: · Use of high CPAP pressures (defined as ≥9 cm H2O) is gradually increasing during care of preterm neonates.. · Limited data exists regarding its efficacy and safety.. · This study compares high CPAP with NIPPV, and demonstrates comparable short-term clinical outcomes..
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".