Reimagining apnea monitoring in the neonatal ICU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review outlines the prevalence and complications of apneas and intermittent hypoxemic events in preterm infants, examines current monitoring limitations in neonatal ICUs (NICUs), and explores emerging technologies addressing these challenges. RECENT FINDINGS: New evidence from the Prematurity-Related Ventilatory Control (Pre-Vent) study, which analyzed cardiorespiratory data from 717 extremely preterm infants, exposes the varying frequency, duration, and severity of apneas, intermittent hypoxemia, bradycardias, and periodic breathing during hospitalization, and highlights the negative impact of intermittent hypoxemia on pulmonary outcomes at discharge. Although traditional monitoring methods cannot differentiate between apnea types and quantify their burden, recent advancements in sensor technologies and data integration hold promise for improving real-time detection and evaluation of apneas in the NICU. Notably, small wearable mechano-acoustic sensors could improve apnea monitoring through continuous detection of airflow and respiratory efforts. Additionally, integrating bedside physiological data with modalities such as near-infrared spectroscopy, diaphragmatic activity, and electrical impedance tomography could help predict adverse outcomes by monitoring regional oxygen saturation and lung function in relation to apneas. SUMMARY: Enhancing our understanding of neonatal apneas and overcoming the current limitations in apnea monitoring through advanced sensor technologies and data integration could lead to more personalized management and improved outcomes for preterm infants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".