MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1925253573 · doi:10.1093/pch/16.1.13

Liver fluid collection in neonates and its association with the use of a specific umbilical vein catheter: Report of five cases

2011· article· en· W1925253573 on OpenAlexaff
Vikas Mahajan, Asad Ur Rahman, Amjad Tarawneh, Guilherme SantʼAnna

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Surgery and Complications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Children's HospitalMcMaster UniversityMcMaster Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeonatal intensive care unitCatheterUmbilical veinCluster (spacecraft)GastroschisisVeinIntensive care unitSurgeryPediatricsPregnancyFetusInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In newborns, the presence of liver fluid collection is a rare event. The reported cases are isolated or described over long periods. Within four months, five neonates were diagnosed with liver fluid collection from safety occurrence reports. Clinical, laboratory and radiological data were extracted from medical records. The definite diagnosis was made by ultrasound. Four of the patients were preterm, male and had very low birth weights. The osmolality of the infused solution was within the acceptable range. Investigations revealed that the use of a new brand of umbilical vein catheter introduced in the neonatal intensive care unit, one month before the first case, was associated with this cluster. Low positioning of the umbilical vein catheter tip appeared to be a second contributory factor. Neonatal practitioners may benefit from the present report when facing the occurrence of similar lesions.

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)0.008
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicAbdominal Surgery and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207