Assessment of neonatal respiratory rate variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate measurement of respiratory rate (RR) in neonates is challenging due to high neonatal RR variability (RRV). There is growing evidence that RRV measurement could inform and guide neonatal care. We sought to quantify neonatal RRV during a clinical study in which we compared multiparameter continuous physiological monitoring (MCPM) devices. Measurements of capnography-recorded exhaled carbon dioxide across 60-s epochs were collected from neonates admitted to the neonatal unit at Aga Khan University-Nairobi hospital. Breaths were manually counted from capnograms and using an automated signal detection algorithm which also calculated mean and median RR for each epoch. Outcome measures were between- and within-neonate RRV, between- and within-epoch RRV, and 95% limits of agreement, bias, and root-mean-square deviation. Twenty-seven neonates were included, with 130 epochs analysed. Mean manual breath count (MBC) was 48 breaths per minute. Median RRV ranged from 11.5% (interquartile range (IQR) 6.8-18.9%) to 28.1% (IQR 23.5-36.7%). Bias and limits of agreement for MBC vs algorithm-derived breath count, MBC vs algorithm-derived median breath rate, MBC vs algorithm-derived mean breath rate were - 0.5 (- 2.7, 1.66), - 3.16 (- 12.12, 5.8), and - 3.99 (- 11.3, 3.32), respectively. The marked RRV highlights the challenge of performing accurate RR measurements in neonates. More research is required to optimize the use of RRV to improve care. When evaluating MCPM devices, accuracy thresholds should be less stringent in newborns due to increased RRV. Lastly, median RR, which discounts the impact of extreme outliers, may be more reflective of the underlying physiological control of breathing.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".