Neonatal Outcomes of Low-Risk, Late-Preterm Twins Compared With Late-Preterm Singletons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that the risk of neonatal morbidity among late-preterm twins is similar to that of late-preterm singletons. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all women with twin or singleton pregnancy who gave birth during the late-preterm period in a single tertiary center between 2008 and 2015. Neonatal outcomes of low-risk, late-preterm twins were compared with those of low-risk, late-preterm singletons. The primary outcome was the same primary composite respiratory morbidity variable that was used in the randomized controlled trial of Gyamfi-Bannerman et al on the administration of antenatal corticosteroids during the late-preterm period. RESULTS: A total of 922 singleton and 721 twin late-preterm neonates met the inclusion criteria. The rates of composite respiratory morbidity and severe composite respiratory morbidity were similar for twins and singletons (8.3% compared with 7.4%, P=.5 and 6.8% compared with 6.0%, P=.5, respectively), but were lower than the rates of the same composite respiratory morbidity variable in the randomized controlled study described previously. The odds for respiratory morbidity were similar for twins and singletons for both composite respiratory morbidity (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.73, 95% CI 0.48-1.12) and severe composite respiratory morbidity (adjusted OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.50-1.24). CONCLUSION: The risk of respiratory morbidity among late-preterm twins is similar to that of late-preterm singletons. Still, the low absolute rates of the composite respiratory morbidity in our population suggest that administration of antenatal corticosteroids may be mostly justified among neonates born closer to 34 weeks of gestation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".