Variability of Respiratory Rate Measurements in Neonates- Every Minute Counts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Respiratory rate is difficult to measure, especially in neonates who have an irregular breathing pattern. The World Health Organisation recommends a one-minute count, but there is limited data to support this length of observation. We sought to evaluate agreement between the respiratory rate (RR) derived from capnography in neonates, over 15 seconds, 30 seconds, 120 seconds and 300 seconds, against the recommended 60 seconds.Methods: Neonates at two hospitals in Nairobi were recruited and had capnograph waveforms recorded using the Masimo Rad 97. A single high quality 5 minute epoch was randomly chosen from each subject. For each selected epoch, the mean RR was calculated using a breath-detection algorithm applied to the waveform. The RR in the first 60 seconds was compared to the mean RR measured over the first 15 seconds, 30 seconds, 120 seconds, full 300 seconds, and last 60 seconds. We calculated bias and limits of agreement for each comparison and used Bland-Altman plots for visual comparisons.Results: A total of 306 capnographs were analysed from individual subjects. The subjects had a median gestation age of 39 weeks with slightly more females (52.3%) than males (47.7%). The majority of the population were term neonates (70.1%) with 39 (12.8%) having a primary respiratory pathology. There was poor agreement between all the comparisons based on the limits of agreement [confidence interval], ranging between 11.9 [-6.79 to 6.23] breaths per minute in the one versus two minutes comparison, and 34.7 [-17.59 to 20.53] breaths per minute in the first versus last minute comparison. Worsening agreement was observed in plots with higher RRs.Conclusions: Neonates have high variability of RR, even over a short period of time. A slight degradation in the agreement is noted over periods shorter than one minute. However, this is smaller than observations done three minutes apart in the same subject. Longer periods of observation also reduce agreement. For device developers, precise synchronization is needed when comparing devices to reduce the impact of RR variation. For clinicians, where possible, continuous or repeated monitoring of neonates would be preferable to one time RR measurements.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".