MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152591620 · doi:10.1136/adc.2010.210187

Chorioamnionitis as a risk factor for bronchopulmonary dysplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2011· review· en· W2152591620 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood Fetal & Neonatal · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBronchopulmonary dysplasiaMedicineConfoundingMeta-analysisPublication biasStudy heterogeneityChorioamnionitisCINAHLMEDLINESystematic reviewInternal medicineGestational agePregnancyPsychological interventionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the association between chorioamnionitis (CA) and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in preterm infants. METHODS: The authors searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index and PubMed, reviewed reference lists and contacted the primary authors of relevant studies. Studies were included if they had a comparison group, examined preterm or low birthweight infants, and provided primary data. Two reviewers independently screened the search results, applied inclusion criteria and assessed methodological quality. One reviewer extracted data and a second reviewer checked data extraction. Studies were combined with an OR using a random effects model. Meta-regression was used to explore potential confounders. RESULTS: 3587 studies were identified; 59 studies (15 295 patients) were included. The pooled unadjusted OR showed that CA was significantly associated with BPD (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.3). Heterogeneity was substantial (I(2)=66.2%) and may be partially explained by the type of CA. Infants exposed to CA were significantly younger and lighter at birth. The pooled adjusted OR was 1.58 (95% CI 1.11 to 2.24); heterogeneity was substantial (I(2)=65.1%) which may be due to different variables being controlled in each study. There was strong evidence of publication bias which suggests potential overestimation of the measure of association between CA and BPD. CONCLUSIONS: Unadjusted and adjusted analyses showed that CA was significantly associated with BPD; however, the adjusted results were more conservative in the magnitude of association. The authors found strong evidence of publication bias. Despite a large body of evidence, CA cannot be definitively considered a risk factor for BPD.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.314 · 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