Effectiveness of Alprostadil for Ductal Patency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to describe the effectiveness of low initial alprostadil dosages to maintain a patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in infants with ductal-dependent congenital heart disease (DDCHD). Secondary objectives were to describe any adverse drug events, describe prescribing trends, describe ductus arteriosus diameter changes, and compare the safety and efficacy of very low and low initial alprostadil dosage regimens. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study at the British Columbia's Women's and Children's Hospital neonatal intensive care unit and pediatric intensive care unit examined neonates admitted with DDCHD who received alprostadil to maintain ductal patency. Very low-dose alprostadil (less than 0.01 mcg/kg/min) versus low-dose alprostadil (equal to or greater than 0.01 mcg/kg/min) was examined. Effectiveness was defined as survival and infants not requiring a resuscitation event (cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, code blue, extracorporeal life support, requirement for emergent cardiac surgery, and respiratory acidosis). Adverse drug events with a Naranjo score of 3 or more were included. RESULTS: Alprostadil was effective for 88% of patients, with no difference between the very low-dose and low-dose groups. Of the 75 patients included, 25 received very low-dose alprostadil. Adverse drug events were common (51%) with neonates in the low-dose group experiencing more apnea and pyrexia than neonates in the very low-dose group. CONCLUSIONS: Alprostadil therapy was effective in maintaining the PDA in neonates with DDCHD with low-dosage regimens. Adverse drug events were common with both dosage regimens; however, the very low dosage appeared to have less apnea and pyrexia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".