MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neurodevelopmental outcome of young pediatric intensive care survivors of serious brain injury*

2002· article· en· W1978854041 on OpenAlexaffabout
Charlene M.T. Robertson, Ari R. Joffe, Alison Moore, Joe Watt

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Critical Care Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlasgow Coma ScaleBayley Scales of Infant DevelopmentPediatricsProspective cohort studyIntensive careGlasgow Outcome ScaleCohortIntensive care unitEmergency medicineAnesthesiaIntensive care medicinePsychomotor learningInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine the number of children with severe brain injury due to closed head injury or hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy as a proportion of all admissions of children <3 yrs of age in the regional pediatric intensive care unit; to determine the outcome of these children at >6 mos postinjury; and to explore the relationship of outcome measures to predictors of outcome obtained within the first 24 hrs after brain injury. DESIGN: Prospective, descriptive outcome study of an inception cohort. RESULTS: Neonatal and Infant Follow-up Clinic, Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital, Edmonton, Canada. PATIENTS: Of a cohort of 53 children of <3 yrs of age (4% of pediatric intensive care unit admissions, 1995-1998) admitted for severe acquired brain injury (Glasgow Coma Score, 80% have adverse outcome of death, disability, or mental or motor developmental scores below average. A Glasgow Outcome Scale of 5 overestimates good recovery. Universal registry and follow-up of these children are needed.

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)0.000
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations36
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Critical Care MedicineSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207