Transcutaneous bilirubin measurement at the time of hospital discharge in a multiethnic newborn population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Severe neonatal hyperbilirubinemia continues to occur in healthy newborns. Recent guidelines have supported using transcutaneous devices in estimating bilirubin levels. Previous studies using these devices are limited. METHODS: Newborns requiring serum bilirubin level measurements before hospital discharge were recruited prospectively. The agreement between a transcutaneous bilirubin (TCB) and total serum bilirubin (TSB) level was assessed. Sensitivity analysis was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 430 infants were enrolled. Correlation between the values was high (Pearson's correlation coefficient 0.83; Lin's concordance coefficient 0.81 [95% CI 0.77 to 0.84]; P<0.001). The mean (± SD) TSB level was 194±60 μmol/L. The TCB measurement tended to overestimate the value (mean difference 12.7), with wide 95% limits of agreement (-52 μmol/L to 77 μmol/L). Sensitivity and specificity analysis of TCB values allowed estimation of clinically important TSB levels. CONCLUSIONS: The TCB correlated, but was imprecise in predicting TSB. TCB values can be used at the time of discharge to safely plan care for jaundiced infants if the limits of agreement are considered and clinical judgment is maintained.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".