MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335331827 · doi:10.1097/mph.0000000000000536

Impact of Growth Restriction and Other Prenatal Risk Factors on Cord Blood Iron Status in Prematurity

2016· article· en· W2335331827 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick McCarthy, Hannah R. Zundel, Kimberly R. Johnson, Sharon E. Blohowiak, Pamela J. Kling

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Health and Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsHealth Research Foundation
FundersUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
KeywordsMedicineIron statusCord bloodGestational agePediatricsPregnancyObstetricsFetusUmbilical cordIron deficiencySmall for gestational ageInternal medicineAnemiaImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether prenatal risk factors (RFs) that predict cord blood iron status in term newborns also predict iron status of premature newborns. STUDY DESIGN: Cord blood iron indices from 80 preterm newborns were compared with historical and demographic RFs for developing iron deficiency if born at term. RESULT: The presence of multiple RFs did not incrementally interfere with cord iron status in preterm newborns. Poorer iron status accompanied being small for gestational age in prematurity, but other RFs, including diabetes, had relatively little impact. CONCLUSION: Growth-restricted preterm newborns are at risk for poor iron endowment, likely due to uteroplacental insufficiency. Other RFs were less impactful on iron status of premature newborns than in term newborns, likely reflecting that disruptive effects of RFs are more impactful in the third trimester. Understanding RFs for poor iron endowment is important for clinical recognition and treatment of premature babies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Hematology/OncologySame topicNeonatal Health and BiochemistryFrench-language works237,207