MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Urinary density measurement and analysis methods in neonatal unit care

2013· article· en· W2337506713 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRev Rene · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNeonatal skin health care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrinary systemUrineRefractometerNeonatal intensive care unitInterquartile rangeMedicineSignificant differenceMaterials scienceInternal medicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective was to assess urine collection methods through cotton in contact with genitalia and urinary collector to measure urinary density in newborns. This is a quantitative intervention study carried out in a neonatal unit of Fortaleza-CE, Brazil, in 2010. The sample consisted of 61 newborns randomly chosen to compose the study group. Most neonates were full term (31/50.8%) males (33/54%). Data on urinary density measurement through the methods of cotton and collector presented statistically significant differences (p<0.05). The analysis of interquartile ranges between subgroups resulted in statistical differences between urinary collector/reagent strip (1005) and cotton/reagent strip (1010), however there was no difference between urinary collector/ refractometer (1008) and cotton/ refractometer. Therefore, further research should be conducted with larger sampling using methods investigated in this study and whenever possible, comparing urine density values to laboratory tests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.361 · 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