MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999965856 · doi:10.1159/000240735

Estimation of Red Blood Cell Volume in Premature Infants With and Without Respiratory Distress Syndrome

2009· article· en· W1999965856 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Usher, Saroj Saigal, Allison F. O’Neill, Y. A. Surainder, Le-Beng Chua

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of the Neonate · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRespiratory distressHematocritCord clampingUmbilical cordRed CellGestationBlood volumeRed blood cellAnesthesiaGestational agePediatricsObstetricsPregnancyInternal medicineBiologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Red blood cell volume was estimated indirectly from plasma volume and venous hematocrit measurements in 262 consecutively delivered premature infants of less than 37 weeks' gestation. Infants with respiratory distress syndrome averaged lower red cell volumes (P0.02) than those without. Fatal cases had the lowest volumes. There was a 10.3% mortality from RDS (respiratory distress syndrome) among the one third of infants with the smallest red cell volumes, and only a 2.3% mortality among the one third with the largest volumes. Red cell volume was shown to be a direct correlate of time of cord clamping and thereby of the amount of placental transfusion, both in infants with and without RDS. From this study it is probable that delayed cord clamping, by allowing placental transfusion, decreases the risk of death from RDS in premature infants. Delay in clamping the umbilical cord for 1-1.5 min is advised in premature births.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 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

Citations37
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of the NeonateSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207