MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mask ventilation using volume-targeted neonatal ventilator for neonatal resuscitation: a randomised cross-over simulation study

2023· article· en· W4382199039 on OpenAlexaff
Brenda Hiu Yan Law, Tina Madani Kia, Faith Trinh, Georg M. Schmölzer

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood Fetal & Neonatal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeonatal resuscitationMedicineVentilation (architecture)Neonatal intensive care unitMechanical ventilationResuscitationEmergency medicinePhysical therapyAnesthesiaPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To use simulations to compare a novel mask ventilation method using a neonatal ventilator, with mask ventilation using a T-piece resuscitator, to study human factors prior to clinical testing. DESIGN: Prospective randomised cross-over simulation study. Participants were briefly trained to use a neonatal ventilator for mask ventilation. Each participant was fitted with eye-tracking glasses to record visual attention (VA) and performed two simulated preterm neonatal resuscitations in a randomised sequence. SETTING: In situ in a neonatal resuscitation room within a Level 3 neonatal intensive care unit. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) trained in neonatal resuscitation with experience as team leaders. INTERVENTIONS: Semiautomated, ventilator-based, volume-targeted positive pressure mask ventilation (VTV-PPV) versus manual mask ventilation via T-piece device (T-piece PPV). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Subjective workload (Surgical Task Load Index, SURG-TLX), VA, quantitative and qualitative postsimulation survey responses. RESULTS: Thirty HCPs participated. HCPs reported higher total SURG-TLX scores (43.5/120 vs 33.8/120) and higher scores in mental demand (8.2/20 vs 5.6/20), physical demand (6.6/20 vs 5.1/20), task complexity (8.2/20 vs 6/20) and situational stress (8.3/20 vs 5.9/20) for VTV-PPV. Temporal demand and distraction scores were similar. While participants took longer to complete VTV-PPV simulations, participants dedicated similar a %VA to the mannikin and T-piece gauges or ventilator screen. More participants increased the rate of ventilation during VTV-PPV; other corrective steps were similar. Overall, participants rated VTV-PPV positively. Participants identified potential challenges with physical ergonomics, cognition and teamwork. CONCLUSION: Using a neonatal ventilator to perform volume-targeted PPV is feasible, but human factors need to be considered.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in Childhood Fetal & NeonatalSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207