Association between Umbilical Catheters and Neonatal Outcomes in Extremely Preterm Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the association between umbilical catheters and a composite outcome of mortality or major neonatal morbidity in extremely preterm infants. STUDY DESIGN: Data were abstracted from the Canadian Neonatal Network database for infants born at <29 weeks' gestational age and admitted to 29 neonatal intensive care units between January 2010 and December 2012. Four groups were identified: those with no umbilical catheters, umbilical venous catheters (UVCs), umbilical artery catheters (UACs), and those with both UVCs and UACs. The outcomes were compared among the groups using univariate and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Of 4,623 eligible infants, 820 (17.7%) had no catheters, 1,032 (22.3%) a UVC only, 120 (2.6%) a UAC only, and 2,651 (57.3%) had both catheters. After adjustment for acuity and other potential confounders, umbilical catheters were associated with higher odds of mortality or any major morbidity (UVC vs. no catheter: adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.18-1.85; UAC vs. no catheter: aOR: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.05-2.63; and both UVC + UAC vs. no catheter: aOR: 2.17; 95% CI: 1.79-2.70). CONCLUSION: Most of the infants born at <29 weeks' gestation had UVC and/or UAC placement. The presence of either catheter was associated with mortality or major morbidity, and the association was stronger when both catheters were present.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".