MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769294630 · doi:10.1016/j.prrv.2017.11.001

Left vocal cord paralysis after patent ductus arteriosus ligation: A systematic review

2017· review· en· W2769294630 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatric Respiratory Reviews · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Conditions and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Ductus arteriosusPediatricsVocal cord paralysisLaryngoscopyObservational studyCochrane LibraryMEDLINEMeta-analysisSurgeryParalysisInternal medicineIntubation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Extremely premature (EP) infants are at increased risk of left vocal cord paralysis (LVCP) following surgery for patent ductus arteriosus (PDA). OBJECTIVE: A Systematical Review was conducted to investigate the incidence and outcomes of LVCP after PDA ligation in EP born infants. DATA SOURCES: Searches were performed in Cochrane, Medline, Embase, Cinahl and PsycInfo. STUDY SELECTION: Studies describing EP infants undergoing PDA surgery and reporting incidence of LVCP were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study details, demographics, incidence of LVCP, diagnostic method and reported outcomes were extracted. DerSimonian and Laird random effect models with inverse variance weighting were used for all analyses. STUDY APPRAISAL: The Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies was used for quality assessment. RESULTS: 21 publications including 2067 infants were studied. The overall pooled summary estimate of LVCP incidence was 9.0% (95% CI 5.0, 15.0). However, the pooled incidence increased to 32% when only infants examined with laryngoscopy were included. The overall risk ratio for negative outcomes was higher in the LVCP group (2.20, 95% CI 1.69, 2.88, p = 0.01) compared to the non-LVCP-group. CONCLUSIONS: Reported incidence of LVCP varies widely. This may be explained by differences in study designs and lack of routine vocal cords postoperative assessment. LVCP is associated with negative outcomes in EP infants. The understanding of long-term outcomes is scarce. Routine laryngoscopy may be necessary to identify all cases of LVCP, and to provide correct handling for infants with LVCP.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.009
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.005

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.202 · 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