Neurodevelopmental outcomes of preterm neonates receiving rescue inhaled nitric oxide in the first week of age: a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the neurodevelopmental outcomes of preterm neonates who received inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) in the first week of age for hypoxaemic respiratory failure (HRF). METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we included neonates born at <29 weeks gestational age (GA) between January 2010 and December 2018 who had a neurodevelopmental assessment at 18-24 months corrected age (CA) at one of the Canadian Neonatal Follow-Up Network clinics. The primary outcome was neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI). We performed propensity score-matched analysis to compare the outcomes of those who received and did not receive iNO. RESULTS: Of the 5612 eligible neonates, 460 (8.2%) received iNO in the first week of age. Maternal age, receipt of antenatal corticosteroids, GA and birth weight were lower in the iNO group compared with the no-iNO group. Neonates in the iNO group had higher illness severity scores and higher rates of preterm prolonged rupture of membranes and were small for GA. Severe brain injury, bronchopulmonary dysplasia and mortality were higher in the iNO group. Of the 4889 survivors, 3754 (77%) neonates had follow-up data at 18-24 months CA. After propensity score matching, surviving infants who received rescue iNO were not associated with higher odds of NDI (adjusted OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.85 to 2.12). CONCLUSIONS: In preterm neonates <29 weeks GA with HRF, rescue iNO use was not associated with worse neurodevelopmental outcomes among survivors who were assessed at 18-24 months CA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".