Rooming-in compared with standard care for newborns of mothers using methadone or heroin.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of rooming-in (rather than standard nursery care) on the incidence and severity of neonatal abstinence syndrome among opioid-exposed newborns and on the proportion of mothers who retain custody of their babies at hospital discharge. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Lower mainland in southwestern British Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: We selected 32 women in the city of Vancouver known to have used heroin or methadone during pregnancy between October 2001 and December 2002. Comparison groups were a historical cohort of 38 women in Vancouver and a concurrent cohort of 36 women cared for in a neighbouring community hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Need for treatment with morphine, number of days of treatment with morphine, and whether babies were discharged in the custody of their mothers. RESULTS: Rooming-in was associated with a significant decrease in need for treatment of neonatal abstinence syndrome compared with the historical cohort (adjusted relative risk [RR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20 to 0.78) and the concurrent cohort (adjusted RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.75). Rooming-in was also associated with shorter newborn length of stay in hospital compared with both comparison groups. Newborns who roomed in at BC Women's Hospital were significantly more likely to be discharged in the custody of their mothers than babies in the historical cohort (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.43 to 3.98) or the concurrent cohort (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.53) were. CONCLUSION: Rooming-in might ease opioid-exposed newborns' transition to extrauterine life and promote more effective mothering.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".