MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1601572962 · doi:10.1093/pch/16.2.79

Long-distance air transport of an infant weighing less than 500 g: Is it in the patient’s best interest?

2011· article· en· W1601572962 on OpenAlexaff
Oliver Karam, Michel Roy, Keith J. Barrington, Annie Janvier

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAir transportStressorMedicinePediatricsIntensive care medicineMedical emergencyPsychologyPsychiatryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When a preterm infant is delivered in a region where resources are limited, long-distance air transport may be required. However, such transport is a significant stressor on an extremely fragile patient, and the neonate's best interest must be evaluated. The current article presents the case of the smallest infant ever reported to have been transported by air, over more than 2300 km, and reflects on clinical and ethical challenges. Is a fragile 450 g baby born in a developing country better off spending the first week of his/her life where he/she was born, or risking a difficult transport to where he/she could have optimal care? What if this baby had already suffered a significant intraventricular hemorrhage? What if we were transporting the baby to provide palliative care 'at home'? These questions are discussed to illustrate the complexity of the decision-making process, and to facilitate a debate on transport of such fragile patients.

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)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0090.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research→French-language works237,207→