Sex‐Based Differences in the Sonographic Characterization of Diaphragm Thickness in Preterm Infants With Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia at Term Corrected Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To determine the sex‐specific diaphragm thickness in infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) as well as in healthy term and near‐term infants. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of an observational study to compare the sonographic diaphragm thickness at end expiration (DTexp) in female and male infants. The study included infants with BPD and healthy near‐term and term infants. To account for differences in anthropometric measurements, we calculated the DTexp as a ratio of body surface area (BSA). Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software. Results Of the 111 infants included, 54 (48.6%) were female. There were no significant differences in mean (SD) birth gestation [26.2 (2.1) vs 26.3 (2.1) weeks] and mean study age [38.0 (2.0) vs 37.4 (1.1) weeks] of male vs female infants with BPD. The mean (SD) DTexp [1.5 (0.4) mm vs 1.2 (0.3) mm, P = .02] and DTexp/BSA [8.3 (2.3) mm/m2 vs 6.7 (1.6) mm/m2, P < .01] were significantly thicker in female than male infants with BPD. In contrast, there were no significant differences in DTexp between sexes [1.5 (0.4) mm vs 1.5 (0.3) mm, P = .89] within the healthy control group. Moreover, there were no differences in inspiratory diaphragm thickness, diaphragm thickness fraction, or excursion between males and females in the BPD or healthy groups. Conclusions Male infants with BPD exhibit thinner diaphragm thickness compared with female infants. Its implication on higher rates of BPD in preterm males is unclear, but this finding highlights the need for further investigation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".