Evolving neonatal steroid prescription habits and patient outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Indications for post-natal steroids among preterm infants are evolving. The objective of this study was to compare steroid use in 2 cohorts 5 years apart and to document the short- and long-term outcomes of our most recent cohort. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of infants born under 28 weeks of gestational age for two cohorts (January 2002-August 2003 and July 2008-March 2010). RESULTS: Two hundred and fourteen infants were included. More infants received steroids in the later cohort (20% vs 35%, p = 0.021) but survival rates did not improve. There was a shift towards hydrocortisone use (<7% vs 76%) and pulmonary indications (36% vs 61% of courses; p = 0.021). Patients died later (8 days vs 30 days; p = 0.02), with a strong correlation between time of death and total dose of steroids (r = 0.91; p = 0.01). Neurodevelopmental outcomes for patients who received steroids for pulmonary indications were inferior to those for the rest of the cohort (severe adverse outcome 26% vs 4.8%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The improvement in short-term respiratory status of ill preterm patients was offset by a disturbing increase in age at death and no improvement in survival rates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".