The impact of a clinical practice guideline on infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: to evaluate the effectiveness of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) on increasing identification of neonates with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) symptoms based on a toxicology screening protocol, decreasing the mean NAS score for neonates and, decreasing the average length of hospital admission, based on standardised treatment and weaning protocol of morphine or phenobarbital. Methods: A retrospective cohort comparison design compared hospital record data from neonates born in the 6 months prior to, and neonates born in the 6 months following the implementation of the CPG. Results: In addition to the significant decrease in the overall average NAS score, there was also a significant difference in the number of measures taken over time between the two groups. Similarly, the change in CPG led to a significant overall reduction in length of hospital stay among the post-intervention neonates. Conclusion: A high proportion of neonates born to opiate-using pregnant women develop the withdrawal condition known as NAS. This study was successful in describing the benefit of implementing new CPG for managing neonates identified with NAS, and mothers suspected of using substances during their pregnancy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.154 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".