MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016622519 · doi:10.1080/14767050701787474

Neonatal group B streptococcal disease: Incidence, presentation, and mortality

2008· article· en· W2016622519 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sudqi Hamada, Mary Vearncombe, Allison McGeer, Prakesh S. Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and Maternal Infections
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticIncidence (geometry)PediatricsGroup BDiseaseSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the incidence, and compare the clinical characteristics, laboratory parameters, and immediate mortality of neonates with early-onset (symptomatic and asymptomatic) and late-onset group B streptococcal (GBS) disease. METHODS: A chart review of 81 neonates with GBS disease (either blood and/or cerebrospinal fluid culture-proven) born between 1995 and 2002 admitted to two tertiary care perinatal centers in Toronto was conducted. Clinical characteristics were compared for (1) asymptomatic early-onset, symptomatic early-onset, and late-onset GBS disease and (2) survivors and non-survivors. RESULTS: The incidence of GBS disease was 1.13/1000 live births. One or more antepartum or intrapartum predisposing factors were recognized in 62% of cases. Early-onset was noted in 65 (80%) neonates (23 asymptomatic and 42 symptomatic). All full-term infants survived. The mortality was 6% and was confined to preterm neonates with early symptomatic disease who presented with shock and had thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSION: Antepartum or intrapartum known predisposing risk factors of GBS disease were lacking in one third of patients. Patients who died were preterm infants in the early symptomatic group.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations46
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal MedicineSame topicNeonatal and Maternal InfectionsFrench-language works237,207