Continuous positive airway pressure for term and ≥34+0 weeks’ gestation newborns at birth: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: weeks' gestation newborn infants at birth. Methods: Information sources: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Databases, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. The Databases were last searched in October 2021.Eligibility criteria: Randomized, quasi-randomized, interrupted time series, controlled before-after, and cohort studies with English abstracts.Synthesis of results: Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and certainty of evidence. The main outcome was admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or higher level of care receiving any positive pressure support. Data were pooled using fixed effects models.Risk of bias: Was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized trials and the Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions Tool (ROBINS-I) for observational studies. Results: In this meta-analysis, two randomized control trials (323 newborns delivered by cesarean section) showed that delivery room continuous positive airway pressure decreased the likelihood of NICU admission (risk ratio (RR) 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 (0.11-0.66), p < 0.005) and NICU respiratory support (RR (95% CI) 0.18 (0.05-0.60), p = 0.005) when compared with no delivery room continuous positive airway pressure. However, in two before-after studies (8,476 newborns), delivery room continuous positive airway pressure use was associated with an increased risk of air leak syndrome when compared with no delivery room continuous positive airway pressure. Discussion: This systematic review has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) [identifier: CRD42021225812].
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it