MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2761033845 · doi:10.1093/pch/19.6.e35-76

78: Factors Predicting Car Seat Test Failure in Late Preterm Infants (LPI): A Retrospective Chart Review

2014· article· en· W2761033845 on OpenAlexaffabout
RW Smith, Adel Mohamed, Julia M. Young, Ann L Jefferies, V Shah

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionRetrospective cohort studyPediatricsMedical recordBradycardiaDemographicsEmergency medicineSurgeryHeart rateInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements recommend car seat testing of preterm infants prior to discharge from hospital with the goal of detecting those who experience hypoxic events while in sitting devices. To determine the rate of car seat testing failure in LPI (34 0/7 to 36 6/7 weeks GA) in a tertiary level Canadian institution. A secondary objective was to identify factors predicting failure. Retrospective chart review of all inborn LPI admitted to our level I, II or NICU between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013 was conducted. Infants with genetic disorders or congenital malformations and those transferred to another hospital before discharge were excluded. Data were collected on standardized forms and included maternal demographics, labour and delivery history, clinical course and length of stay. Infants were placed in their car seat, connected to SaO2 monitoring and tested according to hospital protocol. “Failure” criteria were symptomatic bradycardia <80 beats/min (> one desaturation <88% for >10 s, or any desaturation <80%). Data were analyzed by backward logistic regression. A total of 511 charts were reviewed; 364 infants were eligible. Testing was requested but not performed in 35 infants and not requested for 18 infants who met criteria. Of the 311 infants tested (GA mean [± SD] 36.0 weeks ±5 days, birth weight 2615±405 g) 80 did not pass (26%). 69 went on to have a 2-hour flat bed test; 41 did not pass (59%). Sixty also had a second car seat test, either alone or after a 2-hour flat test; 21 did not pass (35%). Forty-one infants were admitted to NICU for further investigation or monitoring. Factors predictive of car seat failure were (adjusted odds ratio); multiple gestation (2.3, P=0.004), primaparity (0.76, P=0.10) and post-natal age at testing (0.99, P=0.06). Infants failing car seat testing had lower post-natal ages than those who passed (mean difference −32.5 h [95% CI −57.6 h to −7.5 h]). A high number of LPI do not pass car seat probe test. In this population, it may be possible to target testing multiple gestations and primigravidas. Ideally infants should be tested after an appropriate transitional period. Future research should evaluate resource utilization, economic burden and clinical significance of car seat testing and failure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research→French-language works237,207→