MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081600074 · doi:10.1017/s0965539505001579

INSIGHTS INTO THE PATHOGENESIS AND AETIOLOGY OF CONGENITAL DIAPHRAGMATIC HERNIA FROM RODENT MODELS

2005· article· en· W2081600074 on OpenAlexaff
John J. Greer, Douglas W. Allan, Randal P. Babiuk, Robin D. Clugston

Bibliographic record

VenueFetal and Maternal Medicine Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersMarch of Dimes Foundation
KeywordsCongenital diaphragmatic herniaMedicineExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationDiaphragm (acoustics)Pulmonary hypoplasiaThoracic cavityDiaphragmatic breathingDiaphragmatic herniaHerniaRespiratory failurePathogenesisSurgeryInternal medicinePathologyFetusPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) is a major life-threatening cause of respiratory failure in the newborn. Regions of the diaphragm failing to form during embryogenesis characterize the developmental anomaly. Normally, the diaphragm develops to form a continuous sheet that completely separates the thoracic and abdominal cavities prior to the major period of internal organ growth. However, in the instance of CDH, a significant proportion of the diaphragmatic musculature (typically the left dorsolateral region) is absent. Consequently, the developing viscera can invade the thoracic cavity, occupying space normally reserved for the growing lungs. As a result, newborns with CDH (∼1:2500 births) suffer from a combination of pulmonary hypoplasia, pulmonary hypertension and surfactant deficiency. Treatment strategies include nitric oxide administration, high frequency oscillatory ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, exogenous surfactant administration and surgical repair of the diaphragm. Despite these advances in neonatal intensive care, mortality and morbidity remains high.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFetal and Maternal Medicine ReviewSame topicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia StudiesFrench-language works237,207