MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022366969 · doi:10.1080/08035250500482271

Enhanced intensive care for the neonatal ductus arteriosus

2006· review· en· W2022366969 on OpenAlexaff
Lilian S. Teixeira, Patrick J. McNamara

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Paediatrica · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDuctus arteriosusNecrotizing enterocolitisHeart failurePulmonary edemaIbuprofenIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaCardiologyInternal medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Failure of ductal closure is common in extremely low birth weight infants with significant postnatal morbidities from both pulmonary overcirculation (i.e. chronic lung disease) and/or systemic hypoperfusion (i.e. necrotizing enterocolitis). Early clinical signs of a hemodymanically significant ductus may be non-specific (i.e. hypotension, increasing ventilator requirements, metabolic acidosis) necessitating early screening by echocardiography. Cyclooxygenase inhibitors remain the first-line treatment option. Indomethacin remains the most commonly used agent, despite comparable efficacy and reduced risk of adverse events with ibuprofen. Surgical intervention is recommended after failure of medical therapy, contraindications to medical treatment or fulminating duct-related cardiorespiratory deterioration. Wherever possible, surgical intervention in ELBW infants should be avoided in the first week of life due to the potential risks of ischemia-reperfusion cerebral hemorrhage. The postoperative course is often complicated by left ventricular failure, pulmonary edema, and/or hemodynamic instability requiring close monitoring and physiologically relevant therapeutic interventions.

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)0.001
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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations35
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa PaediatricaSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207