MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172111410

Early diagnosis of neonatal cholestatic jaundice: test at 2 weeks.

2009· article· en· W2172111410 on OpenAlexaff
Eric I. Benchimol, Catharine M. Walsh, Simon C. Ling

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Hepatobiliary Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCholestasisMedicineNeonatal cholestasisJaundicePediatricsIntervention (counseling)Meta-analysisIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePsychiatryBiliary atresia
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review best practices for early recognition and treatment of conditions resulting in neonatal cholestasis, in order to improve long-term outcomes for affected infants. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Studies, review articles, and meta-analyses pertaining to neonatal-onset cholestasis were sought via electronic databases. Reference lists of studies and review articles supplemented the electronic search. Studies were included if they examined the importance of early diagnosis and intervention for cholestatic jaundice of any cause, and mainly comprised Level II and Level III evidence. MAIN MESSAGE: Review of the relevant literature supports the recommendation that infants with jaundice at 2 weeks of age should be tested for cholestasis by quantifying the direct reacting bilirubin levels in their blood. Subsequent rapid investigation using a diagnostic algorithm enables early diagnosis of the specific cause and facilitates timely intervention for conditions whose outcomes are improved by early treatment. CONCLUSION: Universal screening for neonatal cholestasis might help with early identification of cases and improve outcomes, although further study is required in the North American setting.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations33
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPediatric Hepatobiliary Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207