MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531942873 · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000001674

Antenatal Corticosteroids and Outcomes of Small-for-Gestational-Age Neonates

2016· article· en· W2531942873 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nir Melamed, Alex Pittini, Jon Barrett, Jyotsna Shah, Eugene W. Yoon, Brigitte Lemyre, Shoo K. Lee, Kellie E. Murphy, Prakesh S. Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Women's Health NetworkChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioSunnybrook Health Science CentreMount Sinai Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineSmall for gestational ageGestational ageBirth weightObstetricsOdds ratioPediatricsRetrospective cohort studyGestationPregnancyLow birth weightConfoundingAntenatal steroidLogistic regressionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of antenatal corticosteroids and neonatal outcomes of preterm small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonates and estimate whether the association is similar to that observed in appropriate-for-gestational-age (AGA) neonates. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data collected on singleton neonates born between 24 0/7 and 33 6/7 weeks of gestation and admitted to tertiary neonatal units in Canada between 2010 and 2014. Outcomes of SGA neonates (birth weight less than the 10th percentile) who received antenatal corticosteroids 1-7 days before birth (n=698) were compared with those of SGA neonates who did not receive antenatal corticosteroids (n=220). A similar comparison was performed between AGA neonates (birth weight between 10th and 90th percentile) who received antenatal corticosteroids 1-7 days before birth (n=3,781) and AGA neonates that did not receive antenatal corticosteroids (n=1,868). The association of antenatal corticosteroid exposure with outcomes was assessed using multivariable logistic regression and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were compared between SGA and AGA groups. RESULTS: Of the 6,567 neonates eligible for the study, 918 (14.0%) were SGA. Women in the SGA group who were exposed to antenatal corticosteroids had a lower rate of neonatal death (7% compared with 12%, P=.01) compared with those not exposed to antenatal corticosteroids, whereas the rate of composite outcome was similar between the two groups (28% compared with 30%, P=.56). After adjustment for potential confounders, exposure to antenatal corticosteroids 1-7 days before birth was associated with beneficial effects among both the SGA and AGA groups with similar reduced odds of neonatal death (SGA: adjusted OR 0.29 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15-0.57] compared with AGA: adjusted OR 0.40 [95% CI 0.29-0.54], P=.40), composite outcome (SGA: adjusted OR 0.53 [95% CI 0.33-0.87] compared with AGA: adjusted OR 0.51 [95% CI 0.42-0.62], P=.85), need for mechanical ventilation (SGA: adjusted OR 0.60 [95% CI 0.39-0.91] compared with AGA: adjusted OR 0.54 [95% CI 0.46-0.64], P=.70), and severe brain injury (SGA: adjusted OR 0.42 [95% CI 0.22-0.84] compared with AGA: adjusted OR 0.39 [95% CI 0.30-0.51], P=.80). Similar reduction in the odds of neonatal death was observed in the subgroup of neonates with birth weight less than the fifth percentile for gestational age and sex: adjusted OR 0.38 (95% CI 0.16-0.92). CONCLUSION: For SGA preterm neonates, exposure to antenatal corticosteroids 1-7 days before birth was associated with decreased odds of neonatal mortality and morbidity similar in magnitude to that observed among AGA neonates.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations29
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrics and GynecologySame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207