Medical interventions and survival by gender of children with trisomy 18
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has typically shown limited aggressive medical interventions and low survival rates for children with full trisomy 18. Recent studies provide more positive results. This study examined 82 children with full trisomy 18 drawn from the Tracking Rare Incidence Syndromes (TRIS) project database. Children were classified into three groups according to the highest intervention received: "hospice or no intervention" (n = 5, 6.1%), "necessary interventions (enteral feeding, ventilator use)" (n = 46, 56.1%), and "aggressive interventions (surgery)" (n = 31, 37.8%). Seven of 14 male children (50%) and 52 of 68 female children (76.5%) were living at the time of survey completion. Additionally, information about any interventions used during the care of these children was also provided. It was found that three males (37.5%) and 28 females (48.3%) had used hospice care at some point; 12 males (85.7%) and 61 females (89.7%) received enteral feeding at some point; 7 males (58.3%) and 25 females (38.5%) had ventilator; and 7 males (50%) and 33 females (48.5%) underwent some form of surgery. These results suggest improved outcomes when given necessary and aggressive medical interventions. Implications and recommendations for further research are provided. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".