MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067620534 · doi:10.1542/peds.2007-2564

Can Birth Weight Standards Based on Healthy Populations Improve the Identification of Small-for-Gestational-Age Newborns at Risk of Adverse Neonatal Outcomes?

2009· article· en· W2067620534 on OpenAlexafffund
Cyril Ferdynus, Catherine Quantin, Michał Abrahamowicz, Robert W. Platt, A. Burguet, Paul Sagot, Christine Binquet, Jean‐Bernard Gouyon

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineGestational ageSmall for gestational ageIntraventricular hemorrhageGestationPopulationBirth weightObstetricsLow birth weightPediatricsPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To develop neonatal growth standards based on (1) the entire population of live births and (2) a healthy subpopulation and compare them in identifying infants as small for gestational age and at risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included all births, between 28 and 41 weeks of gestation, reported in Burgundy (France) from 2000 to 2006. Fetal deaths, multiple births, and chromosomal aberrations were excluded. We first estimated separate birth weight distributions at each week of gestation for (1) all neonates and (2) only infants born from women without maternal diseases. Small for gestational age was defined as a birth weight below the 10th percentile of the corresponding standard. We assessed the associations of small for gestational age on the basis of the alternative definitions, with mortality and major neonatal outcomes. RESULTS: We included 127 584 live births. For term newborns, small for gestational age was significantly associated with an increased risk of death with both standards. In contrast, for preterm newborns (32-36 weeks), small for gestational age was not significantly associated with mortality and morbidity. Very preterm infants (28-31 weeks) identified as small for gestational age according to the healthy-population standard were at higher risk of chronic lung disease and intraventricular hemorrhage. When using the entire-population standard, small for gestational age was associated with chronic lung disease but not intraventricular hemorrhage. The area under the receiver operating characteristic for predicting an intraventricular hemorrhage was significantly greater for small for gestational age defined with the healthy-population standard compared with small for gestational age classified with the entire-population standard. CONCLUSIONS: Neonatal growth standards based on healthy populations could improve the identification of very preterm neonates as small for gestational age and at risk of intraventricular hemorrhage.

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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations61
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207