Twenty-four-hour in-house neonatologist coverage and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes of preterm infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare short- and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes at 3 years of corrected age of preterm infants cared for by 24-hour in-house staff neonatologists and those cared for by staff neonatologists during daytime only. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected follow-up data on all nonanomalous preterm infants from 1998 to 2004 excluding year 2001 as a washout period. Infants were divided into two groups based on care provided by staff neonatologists: 24-hour in-house coverage (24-hour coverage 1998-2000) and daytime coverage (day coverage 2002-2004). Short- and long-term outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A total of 387 (78%) of the screened infants were included. Twenty-four-hour coverage (n=179) and day coverage (n=208) groups had a median birth weight (BW) of 875 g (range 470-1250) and 922 g (480-1530; P=0.028), respectively, and both had a median gestational age of 27 weeks. In the day coverage group, a smaller proportion of mothers had chorioamnionitis (20% vs. 30%; P=0.025), received less antibiotics (62% vs. 73%; P=0.023), and infants had fewer cases of confirmed sepsis (14% vs. 23%; P=0.022). In the day coverage group, a larger number of infants had respiratory distress syndrome (87% vs. 77%; P=0.011) and required prolonged mechanical ventilation (median 31 vs. 21 days; P=0.002). The incidence of major neurodevelopmental impairment was not significantly different between the two groups (odds ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval 0.34-1.65). CONCLUSIONS: Duration of mechanical ventilation was reduced with 24-hour in-house coverage by staff neonatologists. However, 24-hour coverage was not associated with any difference in neurodevelopmental (ND) outcomes at 3-year corrected age.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".