MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089185510 · doi:10.1136/ebn.10.4.119

Review: bed sharing between parents and infants exposed to smoke may increase the risk of sudden infant death syndrome

2007· letter· en· W2089185510 on OpenAlexaffabout
Linda O’Mara

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSudden infant death syndromeMedicinePediatricsSmokeGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Horsley T, Clifford T, Barrowman N, et al . Benefits and harms associated with the practice of bed sharing: a systematic review. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2007;161:237–45.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q What are the benefits and harms of children <2 years of age sharing a bed with a parent or other adult? ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Data sources: Medline, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library , Turning Research Into Practice database, and Allied and Alternative Medicine (1993 to January 2005). ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Study selection and assessment: English language, case–control and prospective cohort studies that evaluated the practice of bed sharing between adults and children 0–2 years of age. 17 case–control studies (3711 cases and 11 349 controls) and 10 cohort studies (n not reported) met the selection criteria. Quality assessment of individual studies was done using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Outcomes: sudden infant death … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DArchives%2Bof%2BPediatrics%2Band%2BAdolescent%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DArch%2BPediatr%2BAdolesc%2BMed%26rft.aulast%253DHorsley%26rft.auinit1%253DT.%26rft.volume%253D161%26rft.issue%253D3%26rft.spage%253D237%26rft.epage%253D245%26rft.atitle%253DBenefits%2Band%2BHarms%2BAssociated%2BWith%2Bthe%2BPractice%2Bof%2BBed%2BSharing%253A%2BA%2BSystematic%2BReview%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Farchpedi.161.3.237%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17339504%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archpedi.161.3.237&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=17339504&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F10%2F4%2F119.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000244650300004&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207