Surgical Management of the Newborn with Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite advances in the surgical treatment and medical management over the last 20 years, neonates with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) remain one of the most challenging patient groups for all clinicians. Treatment strategies have shifted from emergent surgical repair and maximum ventilatory support to delayed repair and preoperative hemodynamic stabilization with lung-sparing ventilation strategies and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Subsequently, overall survival has improved to as high as 80% in some centers. However, specific treatment criteria are vague and highly variable amongst centers. This lack of consensus of these treatment modalities remains elusive due to the heterogeneity in disease severity as well as heterogeneity in patient care amongst centers. As a result of the rare incidence of disease and limited experience of individual centers, the evidence for CDH is typically reported as a homogenous disease largely supported by case series and networked-based studies. To better evaluate the data and compare treatment strategies, a classification and stratification of disease and centers is needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".