MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167413090 · doi:10.1136/jech.2003.019109

Performance profile of an outcome measure: morbidity assessment index for newborns

2005· article· en· W2167413090 on OpenAlexafffundabout

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Epidemiology & Community Health · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsMedicineGestationPopulationPediatricsGestational agePregnancyObstetricsBirth weightCaesarean sectionMedical recordPrenatal careInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Few tools have been optimised for use over the entire spectrum of neonatal morbidity and standardised for use in perinatal population and community health studies. The objective of this study was to determine the performance profile of the recently developed morbidity assessment index for newborns (MAIN score). This score was designed as a discriminative index of morbidity for the entire population of babies delivered >28 weeks gestation without a major congenital anomaly. DESIGN AND SETTING: MAIN score items were extracted retrospectively from the health records of 2892 consecutively born babies delivered beyond 28 weeks gestation in Edmonton area hospitals between June and December of 1999. MAIN RESULTS: The mean MAIN score in the general newborn population was 70.3 (95% confidence intervals 64.2 to 76.4). With the MAIN score tool, 84.6% of newborns scored from 0 to 150 (no/minimal morbidity), 11.3% from 151 to 500 (mild), 3.1% from 501 to 800 (moderate), and 1% had >800 (severe) score. The MAIN score tool was sufficiently sensitive to detect significant effects of low gestational age, low birth weight, male sex, caesarean delivery, tertiary hospital delivery, twins/triplets, non-vertex presentation, prenatal illicit drug use, and medical complications of pregnancy. CONCLUSION: The MAIN score fulfills the need for a simple, universal, yet sensitive and robust tool to provide a numerical index of early neonatal outcomes of prenatal care and adverse prenatal exposures in babies delivered beyond 28 weeks gestation. The performance of the MAIN score agrees well with the current medical awareness regarding the impact of adverse prenatal exposures on newborn morbidity.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.336
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Methods

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

Citations30
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Epidemiology & Community HealthSame topicMaternal and Neonatal HealthcareFrench-language works237,207