Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as Life Support in Neonatal Respiratory Failure: A Single-Center Cohort Study and a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a life support in newborns with severe respiratory failure. Our main objective was to evaluate the mortality of patients and define positive and negative predictive factors of survival. METHODS: We performed a Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)-conformed retrospective observational study and a systematic review, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Our data were analyzed using R (v.4.2.1). We performed survival analysis, correlation analysis, and Fisher's exact test. The first endpoint was the mortality rate. The second endpoint was to evaluate all factors associated with survival. The third endpoint was focused on complications of ECMO. RESULTS: Our study included 8 patients treated in our centers and 45 patients from the literature review. Survival was 79%. Positive predictive factors of survival were a length of ECMO of less than 10 days and male neonates, while prematurity and the presence of 2 complications were negative predictive factors. CONCLUSIONS: ECMO functions as life support, although mortality and morbidity risks are high.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".