MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990835202 · doi:10.1542/peds.2006-3096

Cobedding Twins and Higher-Order Multiples in a Hospital Setting

2007· review· en· W1990835202 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kay M. Tomashek, Carol Wallman

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMultiplePediatricsArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cobedding twins or higher-order multiples is the practice of placing siblings in the same crib, bed, or incubator. Cobedding multiples in a hospital setting was first reported in the 1940s and has been the standard of care in much of Europe for more than a decade.1 Cobedding multiples in hospitals was not commonly practiced in the United States until anecdotal reports of cobedding began to appear in American newspapers in the mid-1990s.2,3 At the same time, there was growing concern about the effects of the NICU environment on infant health and development. Studies have suggested that outcomes among low birth weight infants improved when behavioral cues were used to restructure the environment and modify caregiving interventions.4–6 As a result, the practice of developmentally supportive care emerged. Proponents of cobedding multiples believe that cobedding should be a component of developmentally supportive care because it may ease transition from intrauterine to extrauterine life by allowing for the continuation of the interactive development and coregulation that may have occurred between siblings while in utero.7–14 As cobedding multiples has become more widely practiced in hospitals in the United States, the rate of multiple births has increased substantially.15 In 2004, 3.4% of all live births in the United States were multiple births. In that year, the twin birth rate reached a record high of 32.2 twin births per 1000 total live births, which represents a 42% increase from 1990 (22.6 per 1000) and a 70% increase from 1980 (18.9 per 1000). There were nearly twice as many live births in twin deliveries in 2004 as there were in 1980. The rate of higher-order multiple births in 2004 was 176.9 multiple births per 100000 total live births, which represents a 378% increase from 1980 (37.0 … Address correspondence to Kay Marie Tomashek, MD, MPH, FAAP, US Public Health Service, Epidemiology Activity, Dengue Branch, Division of Vector-Borne Infectious Disease, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1324 Calle Canada, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00920. E-mail: kct9{at}cdc.gov

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations30
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207