Neonatal deaths: prospective exploration of the causes and process of end-of-life decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the causes and process of death in neonates in Canada. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Nineteen tertiary level neonatal units in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 942 neonatal deaths (215 full-term and 727 preterm). EXPOSURE AND OUTCOME: Explored the causes and process of death using data on: (1) the rates of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (WLST); (2) the reasons for raising the issue of WLST; (3) the extent of consensus with parents; (4) the consensual decision-making process both with parents and the multidisciplinary team; (5) the elements of WLST; and (6) the age at death and time between WLST and actual death. RESULTS: The main reasons for deaths in preterm infants were extreme immaturity, intraventricular haemorrhage and pulmonary causes; in full-term infants asphyxia, chromosomal anomalies and syndromic malformations. In 84% of deaths there was discussion regarding WLST. WLST was agreed to by parents with relative ease in the majority of cases. Physicians mainly offered WLST for the purpose of avoiding pain and suffering in imminent death or survival with a predicted poor quality of life. Consensus with multidisciplinary team members was relatively easily obtained. There was marked variation between centres in offering WLST for severe neurological injury in preterm (10%-86%) and severe hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy in full-term infants (5%-100%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In Canada, the majority of physicians offered WLST to avoid pain and suffering or survival with a poor quality of life. Variation between units in offering WLST for similar diagnoses requires further exploration.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".