[At the limits of viability: Dutch referral policy for premature birth too reserved].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of policy and treatment of deliveries at the limits of viability in the Netherlands and resulting survival figures. DESIGN: Cohort study. METHOD: Within the framework of the European 'Models of organising access to intensive care for very preterm births in Europe' (MOSAIC) study, data was collected on all 512 births in 2003 (terminations excluded) following 22-31 weeks gestation in the catchment areas of the perinatal centres in Nijmegen and Utrecht, the Netherlands. RESULTS: Gynaecologists and neonatologists practised a reserved policy for the active treatment of pregnancies under 25 weeks (5/77; 6%); all infants died. At 25 weeks, an active obstetric policy was used in one quarter of pregnancies, but none of the infants survived. Even at 26 weeks pregnancy, the obstetric policy was reserved and the mortality relatively high (9/31; 29%). From the neonatal deaths, 86 out of 92 (93%) were preceded by a decision either not to start or to discontinue treatment. CONCLUSION: Dutch obstetricians and neonatologists practised a reserved policy at the limits of neonatal viability. There is more need for active antenatal transfer to perinatal centres for those at the lower limit of neonatal viability to enable well-balanced decisions to take place. The parents' wishes should always be taken into account.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".