In Newborn Infants a New Intubation Method May Reduce the Number of Intubation Attempts: A Randomized Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Severe desaturation or bradycardia often occur during neonatal endotracheal intubation. Using continuous gas flow through the endotracheal tube might reduce the incidence of these events. We hypothesized that continuous gas flow through the endotracheal tube during nasotracheal intubation compared to standard nasotracheal intubation will reduce the number of intubation attempts in newborn infants. In a randomized controlled pilot study, neonates were either intubated with continuous gas flow through the endotracheal tube during intubation (intervention group) or no gas flow during intubation (control group). Recruitment was stopped early due to financial and organizational issues. A total of 16 infants and 39 intubation attempts were analyzed. The median (interquartile range) number of intubation attempts and number of abandoned intubations due to desaturation and/or bradycardia were 1 (1–2) and 4 (2–5), (p = 0.056) and n = 3 versus n = 20, (p = 0.060) in the intervention group and control group, respectively. Continuous gas flow through the endotracheal tube during intubation seems to be favorable and there are no major unexpected adverse consequences of attempting this methodology.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".