Remote ischaemic conditioning in necrotising enterocolitis: a phase I feasibility and safety study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) improves the outcome of experimental necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) by preserving intestinal microcirculation. The feasibility and safety of RIC in preterm infants with NEC are unknown. The study aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of RIC in preterm infants with suspected or confirmed NEC. DESIGN: Phase I non-randomised pilot study conducted in three steps: step A to determine the safe duration of limb ischaemia (up to 4 min); step B to assess the safety of 4 repeated cycles of ischaemia-reperfusion at the maximum tolerated duration of ischaemia determined in step A; step C to assess the safety of applying 4 cycles of ischaemia-reperfusion on two consecutive days. SETTING: Level III neonatal intensive care unit, The Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto, Canada). PATIENTS: Fifteen preterm infants born between 22 and 33 weeks gestational age. INTERVENTION: Four cycles of ischaemia (varying duration) applied to the limb via a manual sphygmomanometer, followed by reperfusion (4 min) and rest (5 min), repeated on two consecutive days. OUTCOMES: The primary outcomes were (1) feasibility defined as RIC being performed as planned in the protocol, and (2) safety defined as perfusion returning to baseline within 4 min after cuff deflation. RESULTS: Four cycles/day of limb ischaemia (4 min) followed by reperfusion (4 min) and a 5 min gap, repeated on two consecutive days was feasible and safe in all neonates with suspected or confirmed NEC. CONCLUSIONS: This study is pivotal for designing a future randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy of RIC in preterm infants with NEC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03860701.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".