Evidence-based neonatology: making a difference beyond discharge from the neonatal nursery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of controlled clinical trials in neonatal medicine has increased steadily over recent years. However, most of these trials examine only short-term outcomes during the initial hospital stay. To determine whether a common neonatal intervention does more good than harm, it is important to study its long-term efficacy and safety. This review summarizes randomized trials of neonatal therapies published between October 2000 and September 2001. Only trials that examine outcomes beyond the initial hospital discharge were considered. Four beneficial interventions were identified: promotion of breast-feeding, comprehensive follow-up care for high-risk, very low birthweight infants, cryotherapy for threshold retinopathy of prematurity, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for mature infants with severe respiratory failure. Indomethacin prophylaxis in extremely low birthweight infants is of questionable use. Thyroxine supplementation for premature infants and head cooling for asphyxiated term infants require further study and should not be prescribed outside of rigorous clinical trials.
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 | 0.013 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".