MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1593263096 · doi:10.1093/pch/18.2.86

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia – trends over three decades

2013· article· en· W1593263096 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zofia Zysman‐Colman, Geneviève Tremblay, Suhair Bandeali, Jennifer Landry

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBronchopulmonary dysplasiaBirth weightRespiratory distressGestational agePediatricsGestationLow birth weightApgar scoreGynecologyObstetricsPregnancySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and respiratory distress syndrome subjects, along with the trends in severity and mortality associated with BPD over the past three decades. METHODS: Retrospective study of BPD and respiratory distress syndrome subjects born between 1980 and 2008, and admitted to Montreal Children's Hospital (Montreal, Quebec). Data were abstracted from hospital records. RESULTS: Gestational age and birth weight were correlated with the occurrence of BPD with each additional week of gestation and 100 g in birth weight being associated with an OR of developing BPD of 0.77 and 0.89, respectively. BPD severity was associated with male sex, Apgar score and the occurrence of neonatal pneumonia. Significant trends were observed for lower mortality despite lower gestational age and birth weight, greater maternal age and multiple gestations. CONCLUSION: Mortality from BPD has improved over the past three decades despite significant trends toward more pronounced prematurity and lower birth weights.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations113
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207