Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation and Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia Among Very Preterm Infants Never Intubated During the First Neonatal Admission: A Multicenter Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: While non-invasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is increasingly used as a mode of respiratory support for preterm infants, it remains unclear whether this technique translates into improved respiratory outcomes. We assessed the association between NIPPV use and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD)-free survival in never intubated very preterm infants. Methods: This multicenter cohort study analyzed data from the Spanish Neonatal Network SEN1500 corresponding to preterm infants born at <32 weeks gestational age and <1,500 g and not intubated during first admission. The exposure of interest was use of NIPPV at any time and the main study outcome was survival without moderate-to-severe BPD. Analyses were performed both by patients and by units. Primary and secondary outcomes were compared using multilevel logistic-regression models. The standardized observed-to-expected (O/E) ratio was calculated to classify units by NIPPV utilization and outcome rates were compared among groups. Results: Of the 6,735 infants included, 1,776 (26.4%) received NIPPV during admission and 6,441 (95.6%) survived without moderate-to-severe BPD. After adjusting for confounding variables, NIPPV was not associated with survival without moderate-to-severe BPD (OR 0.84; 95%CI 0.62-1.14). A higher incidence of moderate-to-severe BPD-free survival was observed in high- vs. very low-utilization units, but no consistent association was observed between O/E ratio and either primary or secondary outcomes. Conclusion: NIPPV use did not appear to decisively influence the incidence of survival without moderate-to-severe BPD in patients managed exclusively with non-invasive 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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".