Left vocal cord paralysis after patent ductus arteriosus ligation: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".