56: Neurodevelopmental Outcome of Survivors of Neonatal Candidiasis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neonatal Candidiasis (NC) is a leading cause of infectious disease-related death in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. It is associated with high mortality and morbidity. Research over the last decade has focused on the long-term outcome of survivors of this disease. There is a need to review data from these studies to quantify the long-term impact of this disease. To conduct a systematic review with the aim of doing a meta-analysis of the available data from cohort studies. We conducted a search of MEDLINE (1946 to November 2014) and EMBASE (1974 to November 2014) using the OVID search engine. Combinations of MeSH and text phrases/words used included: candida, Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, Candida tropicalis, candidiasis, cutaneous candidiasis, invasive candidiasis, infant, newborn, LBW, VLBW, extremely premature, premature, cerebral palsy, blindness, deafness, child development and developmental disabilities. Observational studies in English conducted on VLBW infants were selected. Articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers. Data on study design and year of publication, sample size and estimate of effect were collected. Studies were assessed for study quality. Mantel Haenszel method (fixed effects) was used to calculate summary estimate of odds ratio. Nine observational studies were selected of which two were case controls and the other seven were cohort studies. Seven studies involving 4194 infants were included in the metaanalysis. Overall NDI occurred in 47% of infants with NC as compared to 31% of uninfected infants. Neonatal candidiasis was associated with an increased risk of NDI (OR= 2.66 (95% CI 1.40–3.93). Neonatal candidiasis is associated with a significant risk of neurodevelopmental impairment in extremely low birth weight infants. Preventive strategies should target this group.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".