MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591802917 · doi:10.1542/peds.2016-2045

Preterm Infant Growth Velocity Calculations: A Systematic Review

2017· review· en· W2591802917 on OpenAlex
Tanis R. Fenton, Hilton T. Chan, Aiswarya Madhu, Ian J. Griffin, Ángela Hoyos, Ekhard E. Ziegler, Sharon Groh‐Wargo, Susan J. Carlson, Thibault Senterre, Diane Anderson, Richard A. Ehrenkranz

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

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Children's HospitalAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)Birth weightGrowth velocityData extractionPediatricsKilogramWeight gainSystematic reviewMEDLINEBody weightPregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Clinicians assess the growth of preterm infants and compare growth velocity using a variety of methods. OBJECTIVE: We determined the numerical methods used to describe weight, length, and head circumference growth velocity in preterm infants; these methods include grams/kilogram/day (g/kg/d), grams/day (g/d), centimeters/week (cm/week), and change in z scores. DATA SOURCES: A search was conducted in April 2015 of the Medline database by using PubMed for studies that measured growth as a main outcome in preterm neonates between birth and hospital discharge and/or 40 weeks’ postmenstrual age. English, French, German, and Spanish articles were included. The systematic review was conducted by using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses methods. STUDY SELECTION: Of 1543 located studies, 373 (24%) calculated growth velocity. DATA EXTRACTION: We conducted detailed extraction of the 151 studies that reported g/kg/d weight gain velocity. RESULTS: A variety of methods were used. The most frequently used method to calculate weight gain velocity reported in the 1543 studies was g/kg/d (40%), followed by g/d (32%); 29% reported change in z score relative to an intrauterine or growth chart. In the g/kg/d studies, 39% began g/kg/d calculations at birth/admission, 20% at the start of the study, 10% at full feedings, and 7% after birth weight regained. The kilogram denominator was not reported for 62%. Of the studies that did report the denominators, the majority used an average of the start and end weights as the denominator (36%) followed by exponential methods (23%); less frequently used denominators included birth weight (10%) and an early weight that was not birth weight (16%). Nineteen percent (67 of 355 studies) made conclusions regarding extrauterine growth restriction or postnatal growth failure. Temporal trends in head circumference growth and length gain changed from predominantly cm/wk to predominantly z scores. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The lack of standardization of methods used to calculate preterm infant growth velocity makes comparisons between studies difficult and presents an obstacle to using research results to guide clinical practice.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.305 · 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