MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292342635 · doi:10.1055/a-1925-8643

Toward Optimal High Continuous Positive Airway Pressure as Postextubation Support in Preterm Neonates: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2022· article· en· W4292342635 on OpenAlexaff
Lana Khalid, Said al-Balushi, Nandita Manoj, Sufyan Rather, Heather Johnson, Laura Strauss, Sourabh Dutta, Amit Mukerji

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Perinatology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesHealth Sciences CentreMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContinuous positive airway pressureInterquartile rangeGestational ageRetrospective cohort studyCohortAnesthesiaBirth weightCohort studyPediatricsInternal medicinePregnancyObstructive sleep apnea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective This study aimed to evaluate whether the initial pressure level on high continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP; ≥9 cm H2O), in relation to preextubation mean airway pressure (Paw), influences short-term clinical outcomes in preterm neonates. Study Design In this retrospective cohort study, preterm neonates <29 weeks' gestational age (GA) extubated from mean Paw ≥9 cm H2O and to high CPAP (≥9 cm H2O) were classified into “higher level CPAP” (2–3 cm H2O higher than preextubation Paw) and “equivalent CPAP” (−1 to +1 cm H2O in relation to preextubation Paw). Only the first eligible extubation per infant was analyzed. The primary outcome was failure within ≤7 days of extubation, defined as any one or more of (1) need for reintubation, (2) escalation to an alternate noninvasive respiratory support mode, or (3) use of CPAP >preextubation Paw + 3 cm H2O. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome, along with other clinical and safety outcomes. Results Over a 10-year period (Jan 2011–Dec 2020), 175 infants were extubated from mean Paw >9 cm H2O to high CPAP pressures. Twenty-seven patients (median GA = 24.7, [interquartile range (IQR)]: (24.0–26.4) weeks and chronological age = 31, IQR: [21–40] days) were classified into the “higher level CPAP” group while 148 infants (median GA = 25.4, IQR: [24.6–26.6] weeks and chronological age = 26, IQR: [10–39] days) comprised the “equivalent CPAP” group. There was no difference in the primary outcome (44 vs. 51%; p = 0.51), including postadjustment for confounders (adjusted OR [aOR] = 0.47 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.17–1.29; p = 0.14]). However, reintubation risk within 7 days was lower with higher level CPAP (7 vs. 37%; p < 0.01), including postadjustment (aOR = 0.07; 95% CI: 0.02–0.35; p < 0.01). Conclusion In this cohort, use of initial distending CPAP pressures 2 to 3 cm H2O higher than preextubation Paw did not alter the primary outcome of failure but did lower the risk of reintubation. The latter is an interesting hypothesis-generating finding that requires further confirmation. Key Points

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PerinatologySame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207