Incidence of Retinopathy of Prematurity and Risk Factors Among Premature Infants at a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the incidence of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in a neonatal intensive care unit and obtain information on risk factors associated with ROP. METHODS: Four hundred twenty-three infants were screened for ROP between July 2006 and July 2010. Demographic information, clinical data, and risk factors were reviewed. RESULTS: The incidence was 40.4% (171 infants) for ROP, 9.2% (39 infants) for severe ROP, and 5.67% (24 infants) for laser treatment. Mean gestational age and birth weight were significantly lower among infants with ROP versus those without ROP (26 ± 0.13 vs 28.55 ± 0.12 weeks, P < .0001 and 840.5 ±17.49 vs 1,190.24 ± 20.20 g, P < .0001, respectively). Birth weight (P < .001), gestational age (P < .001), mechanical ventilation therapy (P = .039), and necrotizing enterocolitis (P = .019) were independent risk factors for ROP. CONCLUSION: Gestational age and birth weight were the most significant risk factors for developing ROP. The study population had an elevated percentage of infants with birth weight less than 1,000 g (extremely low birth weight), yet there was no corresponding increase in severe ROP incidence and treatment when compared to other studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".