MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4368367925 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxac108

L’utilisation du monoxyde d’azote inhalé chez les nouveau-nés

2023· review· fr· W4368367925 on OpenAlexaff
Souvik Mitra, Gabriel Altit

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2023
Typereview
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Paediatric Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le monoxyde d'azote inhalé (NOi), un vasodilatateur pulmonaire sélectif, est utilisé pour le traitement des nouveau-nés en insuffisance respiratoire hypoxémique (IRH) associée à une hypertension pulmonaire persistante du nouveau-né. Idéalement, il doit commencer à être administré après la confirmation échocardiographique de ce type d'hypertension. L'utilisation de NOi est recommandée chez les nouveau-nés peu prématurés ou à terme chez qui survient une IRH malgré des stratégies d'oxygénation ou de ventilation optimales. Cependant, il n'est pas recommandé d'y recourir systématiquement chez les nouveau-nés prématurés sous assistance respiratoire. On peut l'envisager comme traitement de secours chez les nouveau-nés prématurés en IRH précoce associée à une rupture prolongée des membranes ou à un oligoamnios, ou en IRH tardive en cas d'hypertension pulmonaire liée à une dysplasie bronchopulmonaire et accompagnée d'une insuffisance ventriculaire droite marquée. On peut aussi l'envisager chez les nouveau-nés atteints d'une hernie diaphragmatique congénitale qui présentent une IRH persistante, malgré un recrutement pulmonaire optimal, des signes échocardiographiques d'hypertension pulmonaire suprasystémique et un fonctionnement ventriculaire gauche approprié.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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