EFICACIA DE LA ADMINISTRACIÓN DE SURFACTANTE PULMONAR EN RECIÉN NACIDOS PREMATUROS CON SÍNDROME DE DIFICULTAD RESPIRATORIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To establish the efficacy of pulmonary surfactant administration in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome.Materials and methods: Quantitative study type, study design systematic review, population 30 articles, sample was 10 articles on efficacy of pulmonary surfactant administration in preterm infants with difficulty syndrome These were found in databases such as Cochrane, PubMed, Lilacs, EBSCO, Elsevier and Scielo.We included 05 Meta-Analysis, 01 systematic review, 02 randomized clinical trials and 02 cohort studies; Of the evidence found 30% come from the United States, 20% from China and 10% from the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Colombia and Chile respectively, using the GRADE system to assign the recommendation force and the quality of evidence Results: the Most studies corroborate that in 80% of newborn infants with respiratory distress syndrome, the use of surfactant improves lung function more effectively and decreases the duration of mechanical ventilation and the use of oxygen.Conclusions: From the total critically evaluated articles, 08 of 10 demonstrate the efficacy of surfactant administration in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome, because studies showed an initial improvement in the state Respiratory (improved oxygenation and less need for ventilatory support) and a significant decrease in the risk of pulmonary bronco dysplasia (DBP) or death at 28 days of life and 02 of 10 does not evidence efficacy, because they do not deal with the efficacy of surfactant, But the method that was used for its administration..
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 | 0.014 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".