MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742294521 · doi:10.1055/s-0037-1605576

Tale of Two Patent Ductus Arteriosus Severity Scores: Similarities and Differences

2017· article· en· W2742294521 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel Fink, Afif El‐Khuffash, Patrick J. McNamara, Itamar Nitzan, Cathy Hammerman

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Perinatology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Conditions and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersShenzhen Metro Group
KeywordsMedicineDuctus arteriosusGestational ageObservational studyBirth weightPediatricsCohortNeonatal intensive care unitPopulationHemodynamicsProspective cohort studyIncidence (geometry)Cohort studyScoring systemCardiologyInternal medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Several echocardiographic scoring systems have been developed to assess the severity of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) shunting in preterm infants. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the ability of two different scoring systems to evaluate the hemodynamic significance of the PDA and to predict long-term PDA-associated morbidities. SUBJECTS: El-Khuffash cohort (previously described) was derived from a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted in tertiary neonatal intensive care units in Ireland, Canada, and Australia. RESULTS: A total of 141 infants with a mean gestational age of 26 ± 1.4 weeks and a mean birth weight of 952 ± 235 g were evaluated on day 2 of life. The two scores were well correlated with each other and both scores positively predicted chronic lung disease/death in this population. CONCLUSION: There appears to be an overall stepwise progression in the incidence of poor outcome parameters from "closed" to "borderline" to "hemodynamically significant" PDA. Both the El-Khuffash and Shaare Zedek scores are predictive of PDA-associated morbidities.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations40
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PerinatologySame topicCardiovascular Conditions and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207