MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068075650 · doi:10.1017/s0965539503001141

ANTENATAL GLUCOCORTICOIDS: IS THERE CAUSE FOR CONCERN?

2003· article· en· W2068075650 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marcus H. Andrews, Stephen G. Matthews

Bibliographic record

VenueFetal and Maternal Medicine Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRespiratory distressGlucocorticoidGestationPediatricsIncidence (geometry)Neonatal respiratory distress syndromeIntensive care medicineObstetricsPregnancyInternal medicineSurgeryGestational age

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Antenatal glucocorticoid therapy was pioneered by Liggins & Howie over three decades ago. In a controlled trial of babies delivering before 32 weeks gestation, it was shown that antenatal glucocorticoid treatment reduced the incidence of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) and significantly lowered neonatal mortality. Synthetic glucocorticoid (sGC) therapy is also associated with reduced risk of neonatal intraventricular haemorrhage, necrotizing entercolitis and hyperbilirubinaemia. The benefit of antenatal glucocorticoid therapy to lung function in the newborn infant has led to routine use in situations of threatened pre-term labour. In 1994, a National Institute of Health Consensus Development Conference recommended antenatal treatment of all women at risk of preterm delivery, between 24 and 34 weeks of gestation, with sGC. Similar statements were issued in Europe, Canada and Australia. However, the NIH Consensus Report highlighted the requirement for further research into the long-term effects of antenatal sGC treatment on development of the brain and other organ systems, and their function after birth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0110.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFetal and Maternal Medicine ReviewSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207