Bibliographic record
Abstract
Care of the extremely premature infant has been in constant state of re-evaluation as the population, technologies and knowledge continue to evolve. A growing population of extremely low gestational age neonates (ELGAN - <28 weeks) and "nanopremies" (<24 weeks) are undergoing successful resuscitation, stabilization, and intensive care leading to improved survival. Respiratory care is the cornerstone of ELGAN management, as their lungs are at a critical stage of development. The lifesaving intensive care they require can lead to various injurious stimuli making them prone to bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). Non-invasive ventilation (NIV), including continuous positive airway pressure ventilation (CPAP) and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) has evolved and can appropriately support premature infants' breathing, while limiting the invasiveness and associated complications of mechanical ventilation. This review focuses on our current understanding, knowledge and evidence gathered via meta-analysis on these two modes of NIV in preterm infants, when used either as primary intent respiratory support post-birth or following extubation. We will summarize the current data of recent meta-analyses, their pitfalls, and the remaining questions to be addressed by future research to optimize the use of these modes of respiratory support in preterm infants most at risk for BPD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".