Effects of Prophylactic Indomethacin in Extremely Low-Birth-Weight Infants With and Without Adequate Exposure to Antenatal Corticosteroids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether treatment with antenatal corticosteroids modifies the immediate and long-term effects of prophylactic indomethacin sodium trihydrate in extremely low-birth-weight infants. DESIGN: Post hoc subgroup analysis of data from the Trial of Indomethacin Prophylaxis in Preterms. SETTING: Thirty-two neonatal intensive care units in Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Hong Kong. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1195 infants with birth weights of 500 to 999 g and known exposure to antenatal corticosteroids. We defined as adequate any exposure to antenatal corticosteroids that occurred at least 24 hours before delivery. INTERVENTION: Indomethacin or placebo intravenously once daily for the first 3 days. OUTCOME MEASURES: Death or survival to 18 months with cerebral palsy, cognitive delay, severe hearing loss, or bilateral blindness; severe periventricular and intraventricular hemorrhage; patent ductus arteriosus; and surgical closure of a patent ductus arteriosus. RESULTS: Of the 1195 infants in this analysis cohort, 670 had adequate and 525 had inadequate exposure to antenatal corticosteroids. There was little statistical evidence of heterogeneity in the effects of prophylactic indomethacin between the subgroups for any of the outcomes. The adjusted P values for interaction were as low as .15 for the outcome of death or impairment at 18 months and as high as .80 for the outcome of surgical duct closure. CONCLUSION: We find little evidence that the effects of prophylactic indomethacin vary in extremely low-birth-weight infants with and without adequate exposure to antenatal corticosteroids. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00009646.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".