An Evaluation of Theophylline for Idiopathic Apnea of Infancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
19 infants admitted with a diagnosis of infantile apnea who were found to have periodic breathing were given oral theophylline to determine its effect. They were studied at a mean age of 7.1 weeks (1-16.4 week). Each infant was studied during two naps, immediately before and 7 days following the institution of theophylline therapy, which averaged 2.8 h in duration during which electro-oculograms, end-tidal CO2, heart rate, impedance respirations, and transcutaneous pO2 (tcpO2) were continuously monitored. Theophylline therapy (mean dose 2.3 mg/kg q. 6 h) was associated with a significant reduction of apnea attack rates in both REM and non-REM sleep. Periodic breathing and the number of minutes per hour of sleep during which the TC pO2 was between 40-50 mm Hg in non-REM sleep also decreased. There was no significant reduction in the number of obstructive apneas, the number of bradycardias with apnea, nor the largest single fall in tcpO2. Theophylline can significantly reduce central apnea and periodicity in the age group studied, but the long-term effects of such therapy require further assessment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".