Comparison of the SenSmart™ and the INVOS™ neonatal cerebral near-infrared spectrometry devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To determine the correlation and agreement between the SenSmart™ and the INVOS™ devices of neonatal cerebral regional oxygen saturation (CrSO 2 ) measurements using neonatal sensors. The secondary objective was to develop a regression model that predicts CrSO 2 -INVOS values using CrSO 2 -SenSmart indices and determine whether the values between the devices are interchangeable. Methods A prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted in infants during the first 4 weeks of life. Simultaneous, bilateral CrSO 2 was measured using the SenSmart™X100 (CrSO 2 -SenSmart) or INVOS™ 5100C (CrSO 2 -INVOS) device in each frontoparietal area for 2 h. Five-minute CrSO 2 values were extracted for analysis. Results Thirty infants were recruited with 720 pairwise measurements and 26 (84%) were evaluated in the first week of life. Mean gestational age of the preterm and term infants was [30.9 ± 2.8 ( n = 14) and 38.8 ± 1.1 ( n = 16)] weeks, respectively. Overall CrSO 2 - was 77.08 ± 9.70% and 71.45 ± 12.74% for the SenSmart and INVOS, respectively ( p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient ( r ) between the CrSO 2 -SenSmart and INVOS was 0.20 ( p < 0.001). The mean difference between the CrSO 2 -SenSmart and INVOS was 5.63 ± 13.87% with −21.6% to 32.8% limits of agreement. The r and mean difference was 0.39 ( p < 0.001) and 8.87 ± 12.58% in preterm infants, and 0.06 ( p = 0.27) and 2.79 ± 14.34 in term infants. Conclusion The CrSO 2 -SenSmart tended to read higher than the CrSO 2 -INVOS device. There was no correlation between the CrSO 2 -SenSmart and the CrSO 2 -INVOS in term infants and it was weak in preterms. Due to imprecise agreement, the CrSO 2 -SenSmart values are not interchangeable with those of the CrSO 2 -INVOS.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".