Single Versus Repeat Courses of Antenatal Steroids to Improve Neonatal Outcomes: Risks and Benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent additions to the literature provide evidence supporting the use of repeat courses of antenatal steroids. Both human and animal studies offer evidence that repeat courses of corticosteroids improve neonatal pulmonary outcomes, especially for the infants delivered at earlier gestational ages. Although there is also evidence to suggest altered neuronal maturation and intrauterine growth restriction in animals treated with repeat steroids, randomized controlled studies in humans have shown that birth weight reduction was only seen in those infants treated with 4 or more courses of corticosteroids. In addition, the reduction in neonatal birth weight and head circumference seen after multiple courses of antenatal corticosteroids normalizes by the time of hospital discharge. Studies are ongoing to investigate the 24-month post delivery physical and neurodevelopmental outcomes in infants exposed to repeat courses of antenatal corticosteroids. Although there is evidence demonstrating the safety of a single repeat, or 'rescue', dose of antenatal corticosteroids, this must be tempered against the adverse effects seen after multiple courses of weekly repeat steroids. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the optimal number of courses of antenatal steroids to reduce the frequency of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) without adversely affecting other neonatal outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".