MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030096350 · doi:10.12968/bjom.2005.13.3.17636

A survey of newborn blood spot screening practices

2005· article· en· W2030096350 on OpenAlex
Christine Cavanagh, Catherine Coppinger, Linda S. Franck

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Midwifery · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDried blood spotMedicineSampling (signal processing)Blood samplingBest practiceClinical PracticeFamily medicineMedical educationMedical emergencyComputer scienceBiologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comprehensive understanding of current midwifery practices for newborn screening blood spot sampling is lacking. This is an impediment to identifying best practices, training needs, writing of professional guidelines, and highlighting issues that need further investigation. A two-part study surveyed 125 and 101 midwives, respectively, identifying common practices and variability in how the blood spot sampling procedure was conducted. The majority of midwives surveyed reported their traditional practice was to pre-warm the babies' feet although the evidence shows this is not helpful. A wide variety of lancet devices are used, and further research is required to determine the most cost effective device. Practice varies with 60% of midwives not discarding the first spot of blood collected as instructed on the reverse of the blood spot card.

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.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.105
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 integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.461
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.078 · 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