MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071590614 · doi:10.1067/mpd.2002.123667

The newborn individualized developmental care and assessment program is not supported by meta-analyses of the data

2002· review· en· W2071590614 on OpenAlexaff
Susan E Jacobs, Jenni Sokol, Arne Ohlsson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Pediatrics · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids FoundationMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialPediatricsCohort studyLow birth weightConfidence intervalMEDLINECohortBirth weightRelative riskPregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.201
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.201
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.032
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations139
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PediatricsSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207