MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315618920 · doi:10.1016/j.prrv.2023.01.002

Long-term non-invasive ventilation in children: Transition from hospital to home

2023· review· en· W4315618920 on OpenAlexafffund
Joanna E. MacLean, Brigitte Fauroux

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatric Respiratory Reviews · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisUniversité de ParisAdvanced Foods and Materials CanadaAssociation Française contre les Myopathies
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineVentilation (architecture)Term (time)IntubationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-term non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is an accepted therapy for sleep-related respiratory disorders and respiratory insufficiency or failure. Increase in the use of long-term NIV may, in part, be driven by an increase in the number of children surviving critical illness with comorbidities. As a result, some children start on long-term NIV as part of transitioning from hospital to home. NIV may be used in acute illness to avoid intubation, facilitate extubation or support tracheostomy decannulation, and to avoid the need for a tracheostomy for long-term invasive ventilation. The decision about whether long-term NIV is appropriate for an individual child and their family needs to be made with care. Preparing for transition from the hospital to home involves understanding how NIV equipment is obtained and set-up, education and training for parents/caregivers, and arranging a plan for clinical follow-up. While planning for these transitions is challenging, the goals of a shorter time in hospital and a child living well at home with their family are important.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.006

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatric Respiratory ReviewsSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207