Neonatal intensive care unit discharge of infants with cardiorespiratory events: Tri-country comparison of academic centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Compare how NICUs within academic centers in Canada, France, and the United States make discharge decisions regarding cardiorespiratory recordings and home use of apnea monitors, oximeters and caffeine. STUDY DESIGN: An anonymous survey was sent to neonatologists through the member listserv of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Perinatal Pediatrics, the Canadian Fellowship Program Directory, and to Level 3 NICUs in France. RESULTS: The response rates were 89% , 83% , and 79% for US, Canada and France respectively. In Canada, 45% perform pre-discharge recordings vs. 38% in France and 24% in the US. Apnea free days prior to discharge were required in 100% of centers in Canada, 96% in France, and 92% in the US. In Canada and France, 65% and 68% of units discharge patients on monitors vs. 99% in the US. 64% of the US centers sometimes use home caffeine compared to 40% in Canada and 34% in France. Over 60% of the centers in Canada and France wait until at least 40 weeks post menstrual age to discharge patients, whereas only about 33% of the US wait that late to discharge patients. CONCLUSIONS: Discharge practices from NICUs are not well standardized across institutions or countries. Canada and France keep infants in the hospital longer and are less likely than the US to use home monitoring and home caffeine.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".