Outcomes of extremely preterm infants who participated in a randomised trial of dopamine for treatment of hypotension (the HIP trial) at 2 years corrected age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine survival and neurodevelopmental outcomes in the Hypotension in Preterm (HIP) trial. DESIGN: Prospective follow-up of infants enrolled in randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: 58 infants born before 28 weeks of gestation with low mean arterial blood pressure. INTERVENTION: Random allocation to treatment of low blood pressure values with infusion of dopamine or placebo. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Survival without neurodevelopmental impairment to 24 months corrected age (CA). RESULTS: The HIP trial stopped early due to logistic and recruitment difficulties. Outcomes were determined for 55 infants (27 in the dopamine group and 28 in the placebo group) at 24 months CA. Survival without impairment was present in 13 (48%) infants in the dopamine group and 7 (25%) infants in the placebo group (OR 2.79 (95% CI 0.89, 8.72); p=0.078). The components of the primary outcome were similarly distributed between the two arms. Mean Bayley composite scores and the frequency of somatic impairments did not differ significantly between groups but infants were shorter and lighter at 2 years of age after dopamine administration. CONCLUSION: In this placebo-controlled trial of the treatment of hypotension in extremely preterm infants, dopamine administration did not increase survival without impairment at 2 years CA. However, the study was not sufficiently powered and a clinically important effect cannot be excluded. The role of inotropic medication in facilitating good outcomes requires further study.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".