Circumstances Leading to a Change to Prone Sleeping in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Victims
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: In addition to usual prone sleeping, unaccustomed prone sleeping represents a significant risk factor for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). However, little information is available regarding the circumstances leading caretakers to change the infant's sleep position to prone position in SIDS victims. OBJECTIVE: To determine, in a population of SIDS victims, the timing of a change to prone sleeping and the reason for that change in infants who were originally nonprone sleepers. DESIGN AND SETTING: Case series analysis from a questionnaire administered between 1991 and 1997 to parents and other caretakers of SIDS victims in the province of Quebec (Canada). SUBJECTS: One hundred fifty-seven SIDS cases occurring in the province during the study. RESULTS: Of the 157 SIDS cases studied, 139 were found in the prone position, although only 93 infants usually slept prone. Of the 64 nonprone sleepers, 34 had been changed to prone by the parents or another caretaker before death, and 18 had apparently turned to prone for the first time. In the 34 cases changed to prone, the change occurred <1 week before death for 21 infants; for 16 of those infants, death occurred the first or second time that they slept prone. In 56% of the cases changed from a nonprone to prone sleeping position, a caretaker other than the parents had precipitated the change. CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing campaigns to decrease the risk of SIDS should emphasize the risk of unaccustomed prone sleeping to both parents and secondary caretakers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".