MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003570408 · doi:10.1515/jpm.2008.043

Relationships between umbilical cord arterial blood pH levels at delivery and Bayley Psychomotor Development Index scores in early childhood

2008· article· en· W2003570408 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Mittendorf, Sung Yun Won, John G. Gianopoulos, Peter G. Pryde, Nancy Roizen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Perinatal Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBayley Scales of Infant DevelopmentUmbilical cordPsychomotor learningAnesthesiaCognitionImmunologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To correlate data on umbilical cord arterial blood pH (pHa) levels obtained at delivery with subsequent Bayley Psychomotor Development (PDI) scores determined on the same cohort of children at age 18 months. METHODS: At delivery, we obtained umbilical cord bloods for pHa levels along with other biological parameters. Following the birth cohort prospectively, at age 18 months we did a comprehensive, blinded neurodevelopmental examination to determine a PDI score for each child. RESULTS: Over the broad range of umbilical cord arterial blood pH levels from 7.03 to 7.52, no statistically significant correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient, -0.016, P=0.88) was found between pHa at delivery and PDI scores at age 18 months. To study our finding in greater detail, we formed a subset of the data consisting only of lower pHa levels at delivery (defined as <or=7.20) and subsequent PDI scores. In this data subset, we again found that no significant relationship existed (Pearson correlation coefficient, +0.003, P=0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with the evolving hypothesis that adverse neurological outcomes in children often have etiologies other than intrapartum fetal acidemia.

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)0.001
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Perinatal MedicineSame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207