MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281293124 · doi:10.3389/fped.2022.886727

Long-Term Non-invasive Ventilation in Children With Down Syndrome: A Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4281293124 on OpenAlexafffund
Summer Hudson, Tamer Abusido, Meghan Sebastianski, Maria L. Castro‐Codesal, Melanie Lewis, Joanna E. MacLean

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersChildren’s Hospital of Wisconsin Research InstituteWomen and Children's Health Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineVentilation (architecture)Intensive care medicineContext (archaeology)CINAHLCochrane LibraryMEDLINEContinuous positive airway pressureObstructive sleep apneaPediatricsMeta-analysisInternal medicinePsychological interventionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Children with Down syndrome are at risk for obstructive sleep apnea, which may not be resolved by adenotonsillecotmy, as well as other respiratory disorders that may impact breathing during sleep. Long-term non-invasive ventilation, including continuous and bilevel positive airway pressure delivery, is an alternate treatment strategy. Objective: To assess the use and outcomes of long-term non-invasive ventilation in children with Down syndrome including comparison to other children using long-term non-invasive ventilation. Data Sources: The search strategy for the scoping review used Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free-text terms for "child" and "non-invasive ventilation." MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Cochrane Library (Wiley), and PubMed databases were searched (1990-2021). Study Selection: The scoping review results were searched to identify studies including data on at least three children with Down Syndrome using long-term non-invasive ventilation. Data Extraction: Study characteristics, subject characteristics, technology type, and outcome measurements were extracted. Results: A total of 28 articles included 543 children with Down syndrome using long-term non-invasive ventilation. Children with Down syndrome accounted for 18% of children using long-term non-invasive ventilation. Data on efficacy, feasibility, and adherence in children with Down syndrome are comparable to other children. Children with Down syndrome may have greater difficulty initiating long-term non-invasive ventilation, longer time to establish use, and a higher rate of inability to establish use. Outcome data is limited but suggest favorable impact on cardiac function and attention. Limitations: Articles related to long-term non-invasive ventilation use in adolescents and young adults may have been excluded. Conclusions: Children with Down syndrome make up a significant portion of the population of children using long-term non-invasive ventilation. While there is more limited data available with respect to the use and outcomes for children with Down syndrome compared to the other children, long-term non-invasive ventilation is an effective and well-tolerated therapy with no clear differences in the use or outcomes for children with Down syndrome. Additional work is needed to understand potential challenges around establishing long-term non-invasive ventilation use in children with Down syndrome. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=206533, identifier: CRD206533.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207