MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Question 1 * Do feeding practices during transfusion influence the risk of developing necrotising enterocolitis in preterm infants?

2013· review· en· W2146515732 on OpenAlexaff
Amy Keir, Dominic Wilkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNecrotizing enterocolitisPediatricsBlood transfusionEnteral administrationEnterocolitisPopulationIntensive care medicineMEDLINEGestationPregnancyParenteral nutritionSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An otherwise well 4-week-old 28-week gestation male infant has a haemoglobin level of 69 g/l associated with a low reticulocyte count. He is currently on full enteral feeds. The medical plan is to give him a blood transfusion, but the nursing staff ask whether feeding should be stopped around the time of transfusion to reduce his chance of developing complications. What is the evidence that feeding practices during transfusion influence the risk of developing transfusion-associated necrotising enterocolitis (TANEC)? In a preterm infant [patient] with anaemia of prematurity, do feeding practices [intervention] during blood transfusion reduce the risk of developing TANEC [outcome]? MEDLINE (1966–2012), SUMsearch2, the Cochrane library and the Pediatric Academic Societies abstract archive (2000–2011) were searched using the terms: infant, newborn infant, preterm AND necrotising enterocolitis AND transfusion AND feeding, limited to human biology and paediatric population where possible. A total of 342 articles were identified, of which …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in ChildhoodSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207