Consensus statements on the borderlands of neonatal viability: from uncertainty to grey areas.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gestational age and birth weight cut off for intact survival in extremely preterm infants is unclear. There is uncertainty among obstetricians and neonatologists about when it is inadvisable to institute intensive care. The suggested definition in relation to viability is when mortality does not exceed 50% but the corresponding figure for disability is undetermined. On foot of these concerns many groups have produced consensus statements on viability over the past 15 years. In this paper we examine the findings in 7 consensus statements on viability- British Association of Perinatal Medicine, American Academy of Pediatrics, The Fetus and Newborn Committee Canada, The Dutch Group, The Australian Group, Nuffield Institute of Bioethics, Neonatal Section of the Irish Faculty of Paediatrics. A number of points of agreement emerge. All would provide intensive care at 26 weeks and most would not at 23 weeks. The grey area is 24 and 25 weeks gestation. This group of infants constitute 2 per 1000 births. The difficulty is that there are a number of confounding variables. Girls have approximately 1 week advantage over boys, every day increases survival by 3%, the benefits of a full course of antenatal steroids, the problem of multiple birth, the baby's condition at delivery. Also concerns have been expressed about basing policy on short-term follow-up only. Extreme prematurity is both uncommon and complex and should be managed in high volume tertiary centres that are familiar with the necessary facets for decision making.
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 | 0.282 | 0.453 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".