MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209700953 · doi:10.1159/000519828

Lung Recruitment Using High-Frequency Oscillation Volume Guarantee in Preterm Infants with Evolving Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia

2021· article· en· W3209700953 on OpenAlexaff
Linda Gai Rui Chen, Po‐Yin Cheung, Brenda Hiu Yan Law

Bibliographic record

VenueNeonatology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaRoyal Alexandra Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBronchopulmonary dysplasiaMedicineOxygenationOxygenation indexCardiologyVentilation (architecture)Lung volumesLungInternal medicineAnesthesiaGestational ageBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Stepwise lung recruitment maneuvers (LRMs) may be used in ventilated preterm infants. However, its use in high-frequency oscillation with volume guarantee (HFO-VG) is not well studied. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Preterm infants treated with HFO-VG who had LRMs were identified. Patient and respiratory parameters were recorded. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Ten infants, median GA 25<sup>+6</sup> (IQR 24<sup>+2</sup>–27<sup>+0</sup>) weeks, and 21 LRMs were identified. LRMs were performed at a median age of 26 days, with a starting MAP of 16 (14–17) cm H<sub>2</sub>O and the highest MAP of 23.5 (22.0–24.8) cm H<sub>2</sub>O. Most (76%) resulted in immediate improved SpO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2.</sub> There were no sustained differences in median oxygen saturation index (8.4 vs. 9, <i>p</i> = 0.09), SpO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub> (1.8 vs. 1.8, <i>p</i> = 0.8), ∆P (21 vs. 23, <i>p</i> = 0.64), or transcutaneous CO<sub>2</sub> (58 vs. 60, <i>p</i> = 0.84) in 24 h before and after LRMs. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> In preterm infants with evolving bronchopulmonary dysplasia, LRMs on HFO-VG did not result in sustained improvement to oxygenation or ventilation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeonatologySame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207