MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132996494

Predicting Extubation Failure in Preterm Infants Born

2024· dissertation· W7132996494 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michelle Stevenson

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2024
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGestational ageRespiratory failureIntensive careMechanical ventilationRetrospective cohort studyOutcome (game theory)Predictive modelling
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In preterm infants, re-intubation is common and associated with morbidity. Predicting extubation outcome remains a clinical challenge. Our objective was to develop two prediction models: 1. Re-intubation within 7 days, and 2. Non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) failure within 72 hours. We conducted a retrospective study in 25 Canadian neonatal intensive care units, over 2.5 years, involving infants born 230/7 - 286/7 weeks gestational age, extubated from invasive mechanical ventilation. Predictors were chosen based on clinical relevance. A two-level generalized estimating equations approach was used to account for clustering. Model performance was assessed through discrimination, calibration, goodness of fit, and internal validation. Of 1816 included infants, 20% required re-intubation, and 29% NRS failure. Both models had good performance but varying discrimination: re-intubation model AUC 0.704 (95% CI 0.673 – 0.735), NRS failure model AUC 0.658 (95% CI 0.620 – 0.676). In conclusion, our prediction models may help to refine future models with the aim of improving extubation outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.394 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207