Chorioamnionitis as a risk factor for bronchopulmonary dysplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".