Comparison of total oxidant/antioxidant status in unconjugated hyperbilirubinemia of newborn before and after conventional and LED phototherapy: A prospective randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated and compared the oxidant and antioxidant status of hyperbilirubinemic infants before and after the two forms of phototherapy: conventional and LED phototherapy, in order to identify the optimal treatment method. METHOD: Thirty newborns exposed to conventional (Group I) phototherapy and 30 infants exposed to LED phototherapy (Group II) were studied. The serum total antioxidant capacity (TAC) and the total oxidant status (TOS) were assessed by EREL's method. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in TAC or TOS levels between Group I and Group II prior to phototherapy, and no statistically significant difference in TAC levels between the two groups after phototherapy; however, TOS levels were significantly lower in Group II compared to Group I after phototherapy. Oxidative stress index (OSI) increased after conventional phototherapy (p < 0.05) CONCLUSION: The increase in TOS following conventional phototherapy was not not observed following LED phototherapy. This difference should be considered when using phototherapy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".