A Selected Review of the Mortality Rates of Neonatal Intensive Care Units
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Newborn babies in need of critical medical attention are normally admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). These infants tend to be preterm, have low birth weight, and/or have serious medical conditions. Neonatal survival varies, but progress in perinatal and neonatal care has notably diminished mortality rates. In this selected review, we examine and compare the NICU mortality rates and etiologies of death in different countries. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, OLDMEDLINE, EMBASE Classic, and EMBASE. The primary endpoint was the mortality rates in NICUs. Secondary endpoints included the reasons for death and the correlation between infant age and mortality outcome. For the main analysis, we examined all infants admitted to NICUs. Subgroup analyses included extremely low birth weight infants (based on the authors' own definition), very low birth weight infants, very preterm infants, preterm infants, preterm infants with a birth weight of ≤1,500 g, and by developed and developing countries. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 1,865 articles, of which 20 were included. The total mortality rates greatly varied among countries. Infants in developed and developing countries had similar ages at death, ranging from 4 to 20 days and 1 to 28.9 days, respectively. The mortality rates ranged from 4 to 46% in developed countries and 0.2 to 64.4% in developing countries. CONCLUSION: The mortality rates of NICUs vary between nations but remain high in both developing and developed countries.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it