Patients are harmed (again), fingers point. What's wrong?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To determine growth outcomes at 11 years of age in children born <27 weeks of gestation in England in 2006 (EPICure2) and to compare growth from birth to 11 years of age for births<26 weeks with those in England in 1995 (EPICure). Methods 200 EPICure2 children assessed at 11 years alongside 143 term-born controls. Growth measures from birth to 11 years were compared for births<26 weeks between EPICure2 (n=112) and EPICure (n=176). Growth parameter z-scores were derived from 1990 UK standards. Results Among EPICure2 children, mean z-scores for height and weight were close to the population standards (0.08 and 0.18 SD, respectively) but significantly below those of controls: difference in mean (Δ) z-scores for weight −0.42 SD (95% CI −0.68 to –0.17), for height −0.45 SD (−0.70 to –0.20) and for head circumference (HC) −1.05 SD (−1.35 to –0.75); mean body mass index (BMI) z-score in EPICure2 children was 0.18 SD, not significantly different from controls (0.43 SD, p=0.065). Compared with EPICure, EPICure2 children born <26 weeks at 11 years had higher z-scores for weight (Δ 0.72 (0.47, 0.96)), height (Δ 0.55 (0.29, 0.81)) and BMI (Δ 0.56 (0.24, 0.87)), which were not fully explained by perinatal/demographic differences between eras. Weight catch-up was greater from term-age to 2.5/3 years in EPICure2 than in EPICure (1.25 SD vs 0.53 SD; p<0.001). Poor HC growth was observed in EPICure2, unchanged from EPICure. Conclusions Since 1995, childhood growth in weight, height and BMI have improved for births <26 weeks of gestation, but there was no improvement in head growth.
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 | 0.004 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.008 |
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".