Novel SIMPAP for Primary Treatment of Respiratory Distress in Premature Neonates— A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Preterm neonates are often born with respiratory distress requiring continuous distending pressure respiratory support. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices favor a good outcome when initiated early. In our country, most preterm babies are born in healthcare setups that are not equipped to offer CPAP support at birth. The failure to initiate the appropriate treatment in the initial hours could have cascading effects on the outcome. A portable, low-flow driven, non-electrical device, simple continuous positive airway pressure (SIMPAP) [Patent no. 201841018247—Indian PTO] was developed and tested in an earlier in vitro study. The present study was done to compare the efficacy and safety of SIMPAP against bubble CPAP when used as primary support in preterm respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Methods This was a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial conducted among 60 neonates between 28 and 37 weeks of gestation admitted with respiratory distress. The intervention group was initiated on SIMPAP support, and the control group on bubble CPAP. The outcome measured was the change in saturation oxygen pressure index (SOPI) over 6 h. Results The SOPI in the CPAP group was 1.150 (1.070-1.408), and in the SIMPAP group was 1.080 (1.060-1.501). The difference between the SOPI measured at recruitment and 6 h in the CPAP group was 0.020 (−0.001 to 0.213) and in the SIMPAP group was 0.010 (0.000-0.030), P = 0.847. SOPI at the end of 72 h was 1.07 (1.05-1.07) and 1.05 (1.05) in the control and intervention groups, respectively. The complications between the two groups were not statistically significant. Conclusion The efficacy and safety of SIMPAP are similar to bubble CPAP in the first 6 h and up to 72 h for treating respiratory distress in preterm neonates.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".