MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794283231 · doi:10.1080/17474124.2018.1438890

Understanding gastroschisis and its clinical management: where are we?

2018· review· en· W2794283231 on OpenAlexafffund
Candace Haddock, Erik D. Skarsgard

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Children's Hospital
FundersInstitute of Human Development, Child and Youth Health
KeywordsGastroschisisMedicineIntensive care medicineMultidisciplinary approachIntestinal atresiaNeonatologyPediatricsSurgeryPregnancyFetusAtresia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Gastroschisis is the commonest developmental defect of the anterior abdominal wall in both developed and developing countries. The past 30 years have seen transformational improvements in outcome due to advances in neonatal intensive care and enhanced integration between the disciplines of maternal fetal medicine, neonatology and pediatric surgery. A review of gastroschisis, which emphasizes its epidemiology, multidisciplinary care strategies and contemporary outcomes is timely. Areas covered: This review discusses the current state of knowledge related to prevalence and causation, and postulated embryopathologic mechanisms contributing to the development of gastroschisis. Using relevant, current literature with an emphasis on high level evidence where it exists, we review modern techniques of prenatal diagnosis, pre and postnatal risk stratification, preferred timing and method of delivery, options for abdominal wall closure, nutritional management, and short and long term clinical and neurodevelopmental follow-up. Expert commentary: This section explores controversies in contemporary management which contribute to practice and cost variation and discusses the benefits of novel nutritional therapies and care standardization that target unnecessary practice variation and improve overall cost-effectiveness of gastroschisis care. The commentary concludes with a review of fertile areas of gastroschisis research, which represent opportunities for knowledge synthesis and further outcome improvement.

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations36
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Gastroenterology & HepatologySame topicCongenital Anomalies and Fetal SurgeryFrench-language works237,207