Evolving medical and surgical management of infants with trisomy 18
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the evolving management of infants/children with trisomy 18, the prognosis with and without medical intervention, the factors that have contributed to the evolving management strategies, and an approach to the formulation of healthcare management plans for newborns with trisomy 18. RECENT FINDINGS: There has been a trend from nonintervention for infants/children with trisomy 18 toward management to prolong life. It has become clear that the prognosis for infants/children with trisomy 18 is not as 'hopeless' as was once asserted. However, case series of patients with trisomy 18 managed with a goal of prolonging life are not adequate to evaluate the efficacy of these interventions. They are also not adequate to support the contention that they have no efficacy. In fact, anecdotal evidence and medical plausibility suggest that treatment can prolong life in some cases. This trend has been supported by a change in emphasis from a largely physician-directed model of medical decision-making to a collaborative model, which respects parents' rights to make healthcare decisions for their children and recognizes that judgments about outcomes are often subjective, and social networks, which support and advocate for children with trisomy 18 and their families. An approach to collaborative medical decision-making that is goal-directed is recommended. SUMMARY: Healthcare management approaches or policies that reject out of hand the goal of prolonging the life of any infant/child with trisomy 18 are not defensible. Management plans should be goal-directed, based on the physician-parent evaluation of the benefits and burdens of care options for the individual child.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".