MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989949208

Study of Nucleated Red Blood Cell Counts in Asphyxiated Newborns and the Fetal Outcome

2014· article· en· W1989949208 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sylvia Colaco, Minhajuddin Ahmed, Vinayak Y. Kshirsagar, Rohit Kumar Bajpai

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical Pediatrics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNucleated Red Blood CellEncephalopathyWhite blood cellAsphyxiaCord bloodPediatricsFetusObstetricsInternal medicineGastroenterologyPregnancy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The aim of the study was to find the values of n ucleated red blood cells ( NRBCs ) in normal and asphyxiated babies and their correlation with simple clinical parameter and immediate outcome of such babies. Methods: One hundred forty babies were registered for the study, with 70 as cases and 70 controls. Cord blood was collected and analyzed and the number of NRBCs was determined. It was case-control prospective study. Results: The mean NRBC level in cases and control groups was 17.43 ± 19.86/100 white blood cells (WBCs) and 2.97 ± 4.79/100 WBCs respectively (P < 0.0001). The 41.43% of babies did not develop hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE). Stage I HIE was seen in 14.28% of the babies, while stage II and stage III HIE were seen in 31.43% and 12.86% babies respectively. The mean NRBCs were 4.48, 11.10, 25.95 and 45.55/100 WBCs in no HIE and stage I, II and III HIE respectively. The NRBC counts are significantly different according to the stages of HIE (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: NRBCs can be considered as a marker of perinatal asphyxia and significantly correlated with the degree of asphyxia. NRBCs can be used to determine the grade of HIE in asphyxiated neonates. Int J Clin Pediatr. 2014;3(3):79-85 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/ijcp169w

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Clinical PediatricsSame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207