Perspectives on anticipated quality-of-life and recommendations for neonatal intensive care: a survey of neonatal providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Explore associations between neonatal providers' perspectives on survival, quality of life (QOL) and treatment recommendations. METHODS: Providers attending a workshop on neonatal viability were surveyed about survival, perceived QOL and treatment recommendations for marginally viable infants. We assessed associations between estimated survival and perceived QOL and treatment recommendations. RESULTS: In the 44 included surveys, estimates of survival and QOL varied widely. Maximum care was recommended 80% of the time when anticipated QOL was high, versus 20% when anticipated QOL was low (p < 0.001). Adjusted for confounders, odds of recommending maximum intervention were 4.4 times higher when anticipated QOL was high (95% CI 1.9 - 10.2, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The perspectives of practitioners who provide care to critically ill neonates regarding potential survival and QOL vary dramatically and are associated with the treatments those practitioners recommend. Practitioners should take care to avoid basing treatment recommendations on their own perspectives if they are not well aligned with those of the parents.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".