MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986367378 · doi:10.1097/jpn.0b013e31823f900b

Transition to Neonatal Follow-up Programs

2012· article· en· W1986367378 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marilyn Ballantyne, Bonnie Stevens, Astrid Guttmann, Andrew R. Willan, Peter Rosenbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAttendanceNeonatal intensive care unitPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neonatal follow-up (NFU) programs provide health services for infants at high risk for developmental problems after they transition home from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The purpose of the study was to assess current patterns of NFU attendance and explore time points when mothers and infants withdrew from NFU programs during the infant's first year of life. The study was conducted in 3 Canadian tertiary-level NICUs that referred to 2 affiliated, regional NFU programs. A total of 357 mothers and 400 infants were consecutively recruited during NICU hospitalization. Attendance at NFU programs was tracked at each of the 3 scheduled appointments from existing NFU databases. Attendance at NFU decreased over time from 84% at the first appointment to 74% by 12 months, with the highest withdrawal from NFU after NICU discharge, followed by withdrawal after the first NFU appointment. Nonattendance at NFU results in less access to required services and underreporting of the developmental outcomes of these infants. Given these findings, mothers should be screened earlier in the NICU to identify those at greatest risk of not attending NFU. Strategies should be implemented to address potential barriers and provide effective transition and access to the NFU program.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations42
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal NursingSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207