A randomised controlled trial of infant flow continuous positive airway pressure versus nasopharyngeal continuous positive airway pressure in the extubation of infants [less then a equal]1250 grams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To compare the effectiveness of Infant Flow CPAP (IF-CPAP) and nasopharyngeal CPAP (NP-CPAP) in facilitating extubation of infants ≤1250 grams. Design. A two centre, nonblinded, randomised controlled trial. Setting. Two tertiary Neonatal Intensive Care Units in Canada. Patients. Ventilated infants with a birth weight of ≤1250 grams and extubated to CPAP. Outcome measure. The outcome was success or failure of the primary extubation. Successful extubation was defined as remaining extubated for ≥7 days. Results. Of 140 infants who were eligible for the study, 94 infants were enrolled and randomised. Their mean gestational age was 26.2 weeks and their mean birth weight was 852 grams. Being extubated with IF-CPAP was advantageous as 31/48 infants allocated to IF-CPAP and 18/46 infants allocated to NP-CPAP were extubated successfully (χ2, p = 0.014). Conclusion. CPAP with IF-CPAP is superior to NP-CPAP in facilitating extubation in infants ≤1250 grams birthweight.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".