Determining Optimal Home Oxygen Flow Rate For Infants With Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia (BPD) Using Near Infrared Spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) measures cerebral oxygenation and could measure the risk of hypoxia or hyperoxia in infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). We lack normalized data for NIRS values in neonates. We sought normative values of NIRS and proposed that NIRS could better identify a safe oxygen flow rate compared to pulse oximetry (POX). Methods: This prospective cohort study compared POX and NIRS values in healthy infants in room air (n = 22) with BPD infants (n = 10) on oxygen (0.03, 0.06, 0.12 L/min). Results: In healthy infants, the average POX value was 97.8%, and NIRS was 78.24%. Time (% time) with hypoxia was similarly low using either POX or NIRS (3.5% and 1.4%). On oxygen, % time with hypoxemia was similarly low with both POX or NIRS (0.03 lpm: 2.35% POX and 0.01% NIRS; 0.06 lpm: 1.43% POX and 0.6% NIRS; 0.12 lpm: 1.46% POX and 0.2% NIRS). In contrast, the potential hyperoxia %time was higher using POX compared to NIRS (96.5% vs 47.9%) in room air healthy infants. Similarly, hyperoxia %time was more common with POX compared to NIRS, but there was no difference with increasing oxygen flow rates (0.03 lpm, 82.13% POX and 41.5% NIRS; 0.06 lpm: 92.49% POX and 34.4% NIRS; 0.12 lpm: 87.00% POX and 34.8% NIRS). Conclusion: We did not see a dose response correlation between oxygen flow rate and time spent in the hyperoxemic range across different flow rates by POX or cerebral NIRS. We did not see a benefit of NIRS in setting home oxygen flow rates. Keywords: near infrared spectroscopy, hyperoxia, home oxygen
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".