Pulmonary hypertension in preterm neonates with bronchopulmonary dysplasia: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Knowledge gaps exist on the incidence and risk factors for developing pulmonary hypertension (PH) in preterm infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and its impact on outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and meta-analyse the incidence, risk factors and short- and long-term outcomes of BPD-PH in preterm infants. DESIGN: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched for studies including infants<37 weeks gestational age (GA) or birth weight<2500 g with BPD-PH versus BPD-no PH from inception until 5 April 2023. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence, risk factors and short- and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: 44 observational studies evaluating 7677 preterm infants were included. The incidence of PH in mild, moderate and severe BPD was 5%, 18% and 41%, respectively. Small for GA (25 studies; N=5814; OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.3, 2.5), necrotising enterocolitis (22 studies; N=3387; OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.3, 2.2), early PH (four studies; N=820 OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.5, 3.3) and severe BPD (20 studies; N=2587; OR 5.4; 95% CI 3.2, 9.1) were significant risk factors for BPD-PH. Compared with BPD-no PH, the BPD-PH group had significantly higher mortality (22 studies; N=4882; OR 6.4; 95% CI 4.7, 8.6), longer duration of mechanical ventilation, oxygen supplementation, length of hospital stay, need for home oxygen and tracheostomy requirement. The BPD-PH infants also had a significantly higher risk of neurodevelopmental impairment in the motor domain. CONCLUSIONS: PH increases across the severity of BPD and is associated with higher odds of mortality and adverse short-term and neurodevelopmental outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023413119.
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 | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".