MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2768627125 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxx137

La saturométrie pour mieux dépister la cardiopathie congénitale grave chez les nouveau-nés

2017· article· fr· W2768627125 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Narvey, Kenny K. Wong, A Fournier

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Paediatric Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecologyHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La saturométrie est un moyen simple, sécuritaire, non invasif et démontré d’améliorer le dépistage de la cardiopathie congénitale grave chez les nouveau-nés. Pourtant, ce test n’est pas encore utilisé systématiquement au Canada. Le présent point de pratique fait ressortir l’information essentielle et les recommandations en matière de dépistage. Selon les recherches, la saturométrie de dépistage est hautement spécifique et comporte un faible taux de résultats faussement positifs. Le dépistage optimal de la cardiopathie congénitale grave devrait inclure une échographie prénatale, un examen physique et une saturométrie. Celle-ci devrait être effectuée de 24 à 36 heures après la naissance, à la main droite et l’un des deux pieds du nouveau-né, afin de réduire au minimum le nombre de résultats faussement positifs. Si les résultats sont anormaux, le dispensateur de soins qui a la plus grande responsabilité du nouveau-né doit le soumettre à une évaluation approfondie. Dans l’impossibilité d’exclure un diagnostic de trouble cardiaque, il est recommandé d’orienter le nouveau-né vers un cardiologue pédiatre et de lui faire subir une échocardiographie.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→