MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087705132 · doi:10.2174/157339609788185712

Inotropic Therapies in Asphyxiated Neonates: The Clinical and Laboratory Facts

2009· article· en· W2087705132 on OpenAlex
Chloë Joynt, Po‐Yin Cheung

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Pediatric Reviews · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alexandra Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInotropeMedicineDobutamineMilrinoneLevosimendanShock (circulatory)AsphyxiaBlood pressureAnesthesiaEpinephrineHemodynamicsPerinatal asphyxiaCardiogenic shockIntensive care medicineCardiologyInternal medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asphyxiated neonates often have hypotension, shock and poor tissue perfusion. Various inotropic medications are commonly used to provide the cardiovascular support to improve the blood pressure and to treat shock. However, there is a paucity of literature on the systemic and regional hemodynamic effects of these inotropic medications in asphyxiated neonates, necessitating cautious translation of findings from other clinical populations and animal studies. This review discusses the current available information, from both clinical studies and animal models of neonatal asphyxia, on commonly used mediations including dopamine, dobutamine, epinephrine, milrinone, levosimendan and hydrocortisone. Keywords: Newborn, asphyxia, inotropes, catecholamines, blood pressure

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.322 · 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