MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4307055447 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxac100.025

26 Investigating Noise Exposure to Newborn Infants with Respiratory Support: Methodological Considerations

2022· article· en· W4307055447 on OpenAlexaff
Devika Singh, Gerhard Fusch

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSound level meterNoise (video)Noise exposureNoise levelMedicineAudiologyHearing lossComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Excessive noise in the NICU may lead to serious long-term effects on hearing impairment and sensory development in newborns. As such, the maximum recommended noise level is 45 dBA. Reported studies regarding noise exposure of ventilated preterm infants show inconsistent results; however, these studies also vary considerably in their methodology in terms of noise ascertainment (Table 1). We hypothesize that the study methodology significantly influenced data quality. Objectives Our aim is to investigate if measured ventilator noise levels from previous literature could potentially be the result of methodological shortfalls of the study design rather than perceivable noise levels. Design/Methods A ventilator circuit was set up using nCPAP and high frequency mode with nasal prongs. Noise levels were measured using a commercially calibrated noise meter. Three different scenarios were tested. (1) Measurements were taken at different angles of (0°to 180°), with 180° facing the end of the nasal prongs, without a mannequin, with the membrane/orifice of the noise meter placed 2 mm laterally from the prongs. (2) Noise levels were measured at 180° at distances of 0 to 20 mm from the nasal prongs. (3) Measurements were taken in the oral cavity of a life-size intubation mannequin of a newborn baby. Results Overall, the noise levels produced at different settings varied significantly, ranging from 45.7 dB to 82.2 dB. The average environmental background noise was 44.4 dB. Noise levels typically increased as the angle increased, with the highest noise level at 180° for both high frequency and nCPAP mode, at 58.4 dB and 58.2 dB, respectively (Figure 1). Noise levels recorded at high frequency were slightly higher than nCPAP values. Furthermore, in regards to distance, the highest mean value, 82.2 dB was recorded with the noise meter approximately 3 mm from the nasal prongs, with the lowest mean value, 47.6 dB, being recorded at ~20 mm. During trials with the mannequin, the lowest value, 50.1 dB, was recorded at the entrance of the mouth with slightly higher values being recorded within the oral cavity. Conclusion The results indicate that small changes in experimental settings, such as positioning and distance from the nasal prongs, can greatly influence noise levels, particularly above the recommended levels for neonates. In summary, some study results are potentially influenced more by the study design than the device type or ventilator setting. Further research and detailed reporting in the NICU is recommended.

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)0.192
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.309
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1920.309
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.267 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research→French-language works237,207→