MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037169980 · doi:10.4103/0974-2069.58313

Role of prophylactic surgical ligation of patent ductus arteriosus in extremely low birth weight infants: Systematic review and implications for clinical practice

2009· article· en· W2037169980 on OpenAlexaff
Rafat Mosalli, Khalid AlFaleh, Bosco Paes

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pediatric Cardiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Conditions and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDuctus arteriosusLow birth weightLigationClinical PracticePediatricsIntensive care medicineSurgeryFamily medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic surgical ligation of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) on mortality and morbidity of preterm infants weighing less than 1000 g at birth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study conducted a systematic search of available database from 1996-2008. Retrieved articles were assessed for eligibility and data was abstracted independently by two reviewers. Decisions to include studies for review and the methodological quality of included studies were asssessed in duplicate based on predetermined criteria. No language restrictions were applied. RESULTS: Only one eligible study that enrolled 84 extremely low birth weight infants was identified. Prophylactic surgical ligation of PDA resulted in a statistically significant reduction of severe stage II or III necrotizing enterocolitis, [RR 0.25, 95% CI (0.08, 0.83), P value 0.02, number needed to treat 5]. The study, however, found no statistically significant difference in mortality, intraventricular hemorrhage, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and retinopathy of prematurity. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not support the use of prophylactic surgical ligation of PDA in the management of the preterm infants.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Pediatric CardiologySame topicCardiovascular Conditions and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207