Co-Bedding Twins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Co-bedding, a developmental care practice for twins and multiples, has been theorized as a strategy to decrease the adverse neurodevelopmental effects that may be associated with hospitalization. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of study design, methods, and the measurement of desired outcomes for the development of a larger multicentered study. RESULTS: Study findings were used to estimate effect size, determine staff and bedside care organization, evaluate feasibility of data collection measures, and identify issues related to recruitment and follow-up. Results were incorporated in the development of a larger multicentered trial grant proposal. DISCUSSION: Pilot studies can play an important role in the development of a competitive grant proposal and efficient conduct of a research trial. Pilot studies strengthen a proposal by providing essential baseline information. A general overview of the purpose of pilot studies is provided here, along with a description of the process of using findings from a pilot study to inform the development of a larger multisite trial. Findings from this pilot study examining the effects of co-bedding on twins and their parents are used to revise the research protocol for a larger multisite trial. These changes, which lead to improvement to the protocol, and the rational for these changes are highlighted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".