MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022405336 · doi:10.1542/peds.107.6.1425

Postnatal Steroids and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes: A Problem In the Making

2001· article· en· W2022405336 on OpenAlexaff
Keith J. Barrington

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Steroids have been given in pharmacologic doses for the prevention or treatment of bronchopulmonary dysplasia since initial reports in the 1970s showed acute improvements in respiratory status.1 Since then there have been >40 randomized, controlled trials evaluating their use. It is now clear that this treatment leads to an acute increase in lung mechanics and gas exchange in the injured lung, leading to a reduction in requirements for assisted ventilation,2 but there is no published long-term pulmonary outcome data. Postnatal steroids in pharmacologic doses impair growth, including growth of the brain, leading to dramatic reductions in cortical gray matter volumes.3 Other short-term morbidities include hyperglycemia, hypertension, cardiac hypertrophy, gastrointestinal hemorrhage and perforation,4,,5 sepsis,2 and periventricular leukomalacia.4,,6 Despite the large numbers of randomized infants (>2300) only 8 studies (679 infants) reporting neurodevelopmental outcomes were found for a systematic review just published in BioMed Central Pediatrics 7 a new on-line journal, with rigorous and completely open peer review, which is linked to the PubMed …

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)0.176
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.334
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1760.334
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.004
Bibliometrics0.0110.013
Science and technology studies0.0040.015
Scholarly communication0.0150.029
Open science0.0110.008
Research integrity0.0150.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations64
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207