MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090430189 · doi:10.1109/dese.2011.21

A Knowledge Management Based Approach for Mortality Prediction in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

2011· article· en· W2090430189 on OpenAlexaff
Vikraman Baskaran, Irene Bajan, Bharat Shah, Franklyn Prescod, Andrew James

Bibliographic record

Venue2011 Developments in E-systems Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeonatal intensive care unitCritically illIntensive careHealth careMedicineInfant mortalityNeonatal mortalityIntensive care unitIntensive care medicinePediatricsPopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) is one of the most information sensitive environments where efforts are made continuously to deliver the optimal health-care for fragile, critically ill patients. NICU health care providers employ cutting edge clinical processes, technologies, and latest tools and techniques to provide care for critically ill new born infants. Research has shown that predicting an infant's mortality is important in making critical care decisions. Contemporary, 21st century neonatal intensive care involves the active participation of parents. Although, there are neonatal scores that can be used to measure severity of illness, they are complex and are difficult to comprehend for a novice. Hence, there is a need to combine all the care related information to obtain an indication of the newborn infant's state of health. A new score for Neonatal Mortality Prediction (NMPS) is proposed in this paper. This NMPS would provide an easy to understood numeric value that can be comprehended by both neonatal health care providers and parents. The NMPS would employ factors captured from the antenatal, perinatal and neonatal periods for estimating a consolidated score.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2011 Developments in E-systems EngineeringSame topicHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringFrench-language works237,207