MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137476958 · doi:10.1136/fn.88.3.f179

Long term outcome of neonatal meningitis

2003· article· en· W2137476958 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathan Stevens

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood Fetal & Neonatal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsMedicinePediatricsMeningitisIntelligence quotientHydrocephalusSurgeryCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To quantify long term impairment after neonatal meningitis. DESIGN: Longitudinal case-control study over 9-10 years. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 111 children who had suffered neonatal meningitis were seen and compared with 113 matched controls from their birth hospital and 49 controls from general practices. Assessments included the WISC III(UK), movement assessment battery for children (mABC), audiometry, vision testing, and social and medical data. Statistical analysis was by multiple regression, analysis of variance, and chi(2) tests. RESULTS: Some 10.8% of cases had a severe and 9% a moderate overall outcome compared with 0% and 1.8% for the hospital controls. The mean intelligence quotient (IQ) of the cases (88.8) was significantly less than that of the hospital controls (99.4) or the GP controls (99.6). The mABC score was significantly worse for the cases (7.08) than the hospital (5) or GP (4) controls. Some 3.6% of cases had sensorineural hearing loss, 2.7% had persisting hydrocephalus; no controls did. Some 5.4% of cases and 1.7% of hospital controls had treatment for seizures. CONCLUSIONS: Severe neurodisability and milder motor and psychometric impairment result from neonatal meningitis. Both clinical follow up and comprehensive developmental assessment are needed after this disease.

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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations152
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in Childhood Fetal & NeonatalSame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207