MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393932994 · doi:10.1186/s13063-024-08080-2

Does the use of higher versus lower oxygen concentration improve neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18–24 months in very low birthweight infants?

2024· article· en· W4393932994 on OpenAlexafffund
Georg M. Schmölzer, Elizabeth Asztalos, Marc Beltempo, Héctor Boix, Eugene Dempsey, Walid El‐Naggar, Neil N. Finer, Jo-Anna Hudson, Amit Mukerji, Brenda Hiu Yan Law, Maryna Yaskina, Prakesh S. Shah, Ayman Sheta, Amuchou Soraisham, William Tarnow‐Mordi, Máximo Vento

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of CalgaryMount Sinai HospitalMcMaster UniversityFoothills Medical CentreMemorial University of NewfoundlandMcGill UniversityUniversity of TorontoMontreal Children's HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreDalhousie UniversityWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteRoyal Alexandra HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialFraction of inspired oxygenNeonatal resuscitationPediatricsConfidence intervalLow birth weightResuscitationAdverse effectGestationSupplemental oxygenNeonatologyClinical trialAnesthesiaPregnancyMechanical ventilationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Immediately after birth, the oxygen saturation is between 30 and 50%, which then increases to 85–95% within the first 10 min. Over the last 10 years, recommendations regarding the ideal level of the initial fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) for resuscitation in preterm infants have changed from 1.0, to room air to low levels of oxygen (< 0.3), up to moderate concentrations (0.3–0.65). This leaves clinicians in a challenging position, and a large multi-center international trial of sufficient sample size that is powered to look at safety outcomes such as mortality and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes is required to provide the necessary evidence to guide clinical practice with confidence. Methods An international cluster, cross-over randomized trial of initial FiO2 of 0.3 or 0.6 during neonatal resuscitation in preterm infants at birth to increase survival free of major neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 and 24 months corrected age will be conducted. Preterm infants born between 230/7 and 286/7 weeks’ gestation will be eligible. Each participating hospital will be randomized to either an initial FiO2 concentration of either 0.3 or 0.6 to recruit for up to 12 months’ and then crossed over to the other concentration for up to 12 months. The intervention will be initial FiO2 of 0.6, and the comparator will be initial FiO2 of 0.3 during respiratory support in the delivery room. The sample size will be 1200 preterm infants. This will yield 80% power, assuming a type 1 error of 5% to detect a 25% reduction in relative risk of the primary outcome from 35 to 26.5%. The primary outcome will be a composite of all-cause mortality or the presence of a major neurodevelopmental outcome between 18 and 24 months corrected age. Secondary outcomes will include the components of the primary outcome (death, cerebral palsy, major developmental delay involving cognition, speech, visual, or hearing impairment) in addition to neonatal morbidities (severe brain injury, bronchopulmonary dysplasia; and severe retinopathy of prematurity). Discussion The use of supplementary oxygen may be crucial but also potentially detrimental to preterm infants at birth. The HiLo trial is powered for the primary outcome and will address gaps in the evidence due to its pragmatic and inclusive design, targeting all extremely preterm infants. Should 60% initial oxygen concertation increase survival free of major neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18–24 months corrected age, without severe adverse effects, this readily available intervention could be introduced immediately into clinical practice. Trial registration The trial was registered on January 31, 2019, at ClinicalTrials.gov with the Identifier: NCT03825835.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.175
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207