MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical usefulness of reintubation criteria in extremely preterm infants: a cohort study

2023· article· en· W4376639876 on OpenAlexafffund
Tuğba Alarcon-Martinez, Samantha Latremouille, Lajos Kovács, Robert E. Kearney, Guilherme SantʼAnna, Wissam Shalish

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood Fetal & Neonatal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessMedicineGestational ageObservational studyPediatricsAnesthesiaInternal medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To describe the thresholds of instability used by clinicians at reintubation and evaluate the accuracy of different combinations of criteria in predicting reintubation decisions. Design Secondary analysis using data obtained from the prospective observational Automated Prediction of Extubation Readiness study ( NCT01909947 ) between 2013 and 2018. Setting Multicentre (three neonatal intensive care units). Patients Infants with birth weight ≤1250 g, mechanically ventilated and undergoing their first planned extubation were included. Interventions After extubation, hourly O2 requirements, blood gas values and occurrence of cardiorespiratory events requiring intervention were recorded for 14 days or until reintubation, whichever came first. Main outcome measures Thresholds at reintubation were described and grouped into four categories: increased O2, respiratory acidosis, frequent cardiorespiratory events and severe cardiorespiratory events (requiring positive pressure ventilation). An automated algorithm was used to generate multiple combinations of criteria from the four categories and compute their accuracies in capturing reintubated infants (sensitivity) without including non-reintubated infants (specificity). Results 55 infants were reintubated (median gestational age 25.2 weeks (IQR 24.5–26.1 weeks), birth weight 750 g (IQR 640–880 g)), with highly variable thresholds at reintubation. After extubation, reintubated infants had significantly greater O2 needs, lower pH, higher pCO2 and more frequent and severe cardiorespiratory events compared with non-reintubated infants. After evaluating 123 374 combinations of reintubation criteria, Youden indices ranged from 0 to 0.46, suggesting low accuracy. This was primarily attributable to the poor agreement between clinicians on the number of cardiorespiratory events at which to reintubate. Conclusions Criteria used for reintubation in clinical practice are highly variable, with no combination accurately predicting the decision to reintubate.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in Childhood Fetal & NeonatalSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207