Protecting brains and saving futures guidelines: A prospective, multicenter, and observational study on the use of telemedicine for neonatal neurocritical care in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Management of high-risk newborns should involve the use of standardized protocols and training, continuous and specialized brain monitoring with electroencephalography (EEG), amplitude integrated EEG, Near Infrared Spectroscopy, and neuroimaging. Brazil is a large country with disparities in health care assessment and some neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) are not well structured with trained personnel able to provide adequate neurocritical care. To reduce this existing gap, an advanced telemedicine model of neurocritical care called Protecting Brains and Saving Futures (PBSF) Guidelines was developed and implemented in a group of Brazilian NICUs. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, and observational study will be conducted in all 20 Brazilian NICUs using the PBSF Guidelines as standard-of-care. All infants treated accordingly to the guidelines during Dec 2021 to Nov 2024 will be eligible. Ethical approval was obtained from participating centers. The primary objective is to describe adherence to the PBSF Guidelines and clinical outcomes, by center and over a 3-year period. Adherence will be measured by quantification of neuromonitoring, neuroimaging exams, sub-specialties consultation, and clinical case discussions and videoconference meetings. Clinical outcomes of interest are detection of seizures during hospitalization, use of anticonvulsants, inotropes, and fluid resuscitation, death before hospital discharge, length of hospital stay, and referral of patients to specialized follow-up. DISCUSSION: The study will provide evaluation of PBSF Guidelines adherence and its impact on clinical outcomes. Thus, data from this large prospective, multicenter, and observational study will help determine whether neonatal neurocritical care via telemedicine can be effective. Ultimately, it may offer the necessary framework for larger scale implementation and development of research projects using remote neuromonitoring. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03786497, Registered 26 December 2018, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03786497?term=protecting+brains+and+saving+futures&draw=2&rank=1.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".