Continuing utilisation of specialised health services in extremely preterm infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare use from neonatal discharge to 18 months corrected age (CA) of two groups of extremely preterm neonates (23-25 vs 26-28 weeks). DESIGN: Cohort study. PATIENTS: Infants born at < or =28 weeks and admitted in three hospital centres in Quebec, Canada (n=254). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Neurodevelopmental outcomes and healthcare use from neonatal discharge to 18 months CA. RESULTS: Re-hospitalisation rates occurred in 57% of children born at 23-25 weeks and in 49% of those born at 26-28 weeks. In these two age groups, by 18 months, 61% vs 59% were followed in physical or occupational therapy, 29% vs 17% were enrolled in a long-term rehabilitation program, 38% vs 28% used prescribed medication, and 59% vs 33% required medical assistive devices, respectively. Risk of re-hospitalisation was related to bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), severe brain injury, use of home oxygen or an apnoea monitor and older age at neonatal discharge. Multiple births, BPD, severe brain injury, older age at neonatal discharge and single parenthood were associated with risk of using out-patient health services above average (>2 services). CONCLUSION: Extremely preterm children are frequently re-hospitalised during infancy and use a substantial amount of healthcare resources. These results highlight the importance of resource allocation to preterm infants for medical and rehabilitation services after discharge from the neonatal intensive care unit.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".