Trial of aerosolised surfactant for preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of an aerosolised surfactant, SF-RI 1, administered via nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) and a prototype breath synchronisation device (AeroFact), to preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). DESIGN: Multicentre, open-label, dose-escalation study with historical controls. SETTING: Newborn intensive care units at Mater Mothers' Hospital, Brisbane, and Royal Hospital for Women, Sydney, Australia. PATIENTS: ) <0.30 at <2 hours of age. INTERVENTIONS: In part 1, infants received a single dose of 216 mg/kg of aerosolised surfactant. In part 2, infants could receive up to four doses of aerosolised surfactant. Three historical control infants were matched for each enrolled infant. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: O, arterial carbon dioxide >65 mm Hg, pH <7.20 or three severe apnoeas within 6 hours during the first 72 hours of life. Other outcomes included tolerance of the AeroFact treatment and complications of prematurity. RESULTS: 10 infants were enrolled in part 1 and 21 in part 2 and were compared with 93 historical controls. No safety issues were identified. In part 2, 6 of 21 (29%) AeroFact-treated infants compared with 30 of 63 (48%) control infants met failure criteria. Kaplan-Meier analysis of patients in part 2 showed a trend towards decreased rate of study failure in the AeroFact-treated infants compared with historical controls (p=0.10). CONCLUSION: The AeroFact system can safely deliver aerosolised surfactant to preterm infants with RDS who are on nCPAP. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617001458325.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".