Comparison of conventional mechanical ventilation and high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in congenital diaphragmatic hernias: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outcomes of conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) and high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) in patients with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) were compared through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Outcome measures included mortality and incidence of chronic lung disease (CLD). Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were evaluated. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the strategy for applying HFOV in CDH patients. Group A: CMV was initially applied in all CDH patients, and HFOV was applied in unstable patients. Group B: chronologically analyzed. (CMV and HFOV era) Group C: CMV or HFOV was used as the initial MV. Of the 2199 abstracts screened, 15 full-text articles were analyzed. Regarding mortality, 16.7% (365/2180) and 32.8% (456/1389) patients died in CMV and HFOV, respectively (OR, 2.53; 95%CI 2.12-3.01). Subgroup analyses showed significantly worse, better, and equivalent mortality for HFOV than that for CMV in group A, B, and C, respectively. CLD occurred in 32.4% (399/1230) and 49.3% (369/749) patients in CMV and HFOV, respectively (OR, 2.37; 95%CI 1.93-2.90). The evidence from the literature is poor. Mortality and the incidence of CLD appear worse after HFOV in children with CDH. Cautious interpretation is needed due to the heterogeneity of each study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".