MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550859085 · doi:10.1111/apa.13672

Scoping review shows wide variation in the definitions of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants and calls for a consensus

2016· article· en· W2550859085 on OpenAlexafffund
Delaney Hines, Neena Modi, Shoo K. Lee, Tetsuya Isayama, Gunnar Sjörs, Luigi Gagliardi, Liisa Lehtonen, Máximo Vento, Satoshi Kusuda, Dirk Bassler, Rintaro Mori, Brian Reichman, Stellan Håkansson, Brian A. Darlow, Mark Adams, Franca Rusconi, Kei Lui, Naho Morisaki, Natasha Musrap, Prakesh S. Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Paediatrica · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsBronchopulmonary dysplasiaMedicineIncidence (geometry)PediatricsBenchmarkingIntensive care medicineConsensus conferenceDysplasiaInternal medicineGestational agePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of different definitions for bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) has been an ongoing challenge. We searched papers published in English from 2010 and 2015 reporting BPD as an outcome, together with studies that compared BPD definitions between 1978 and 2015. We found that the incidence of BPD ranged from 6% to 57%, depending on the definition chosen, and that studies that investigated correlations with long-term pulmonary and/or neurosensory outcomes reported moderate-to-low predictive values regardless of the BPD criteria. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive and evidence-based definition for BPD needs to be developed for benchmarking and prognostic use.

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)0.126
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.395
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1260.395
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0250.028
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations120
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa PaediatricaSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207