MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790459200 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2016-003338

Effectiveness of universal hyperbilirubinemia screening on newborn health: a systematic review protocol

2018· review· en· W2790459200 on OpenAlexaff
Faiza Khurshid, Jennifer Medves

Bibliographic record

VenueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Health and Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)MedicineComputer scienceAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

REVIEW QUESTION/OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to assess the effectiveness of the universal hyperbilirubinemia screening program on common newborn health outcomes.Specifically, the review will assess: the incidence of severe hyperbilirubinemia/kernicterus/exchange transfusion, rate of readmission due to jaundice, length of hospital stay on birth admission, rate and utilization of phototherapy during birth hospitalization, and jaundice related emergency visits.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.019
Bibliometrics0.0130.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.004

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation ReportsSame topicNeonatal Health and BiochemistryFrench-language works237,207