NEONATAL FOLLOW-UP IN CANADA. A NATIONAL SURVEY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND The Canadian Neonatal Follow-Up Network (CNFUN) was developed in 2008 to facilitate collaboration in research by providing a national database and implemented standardized neurodevelopmental assessments at 18 and 36 months corrected ages for babies born <29-week gestational age. Previous Canadian surveys showed a large variability in neonatal follow-up practices. This is the first Canadian national survey since the establishment of CNFUN. OBJECTIVES To describe the current status of neonatal follow-up services in Canada and to evaluate the impact of CNFUN by comparing the results of the current survey to a 2006 survey. Proportions are compared using chi square, p value < 0.006 adjusted for multiple comparisons. DESIGN/METHODS All 26 Level-III University Affiliated Neonatal Follow-up programs in Canada belonged to CNFUN and were invited to participate in this comprehensive online survey. Questions were based on previous survey results, current literature and discussion amongst the investigators. RESULTS 23/26 (88%) of invited programs completed the survey. Scope of service: All programs provided neurodevelopmental screening and referral for intervention. Data collection, training and education were provided by most programs (>80%). Therapeutic interventions were offered by a smaller number of programs (>50%). Type of Assessments: The use of Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development increased significantly since 2006. For speech and language, adaptive behavior, and psychological standardized assessments tools a large variation remains. Follow-Up Schedule: Most programs offer between 5 to 7 follow-up visits. There remains a great variability in the timing of visits. Eligibility Criteria: The use of gestational age eligibility criteria, the inclusion of up to 29 weeks, and the expansion to include additional neurologic, cardio-respiratory, and fetal diagnosis has increased since 2006. CONCLUSION CNFUN was associated with a clinically important, statistically non-significant standardization. Non-preterm eligibility criteria have increased. Marked variability in Neonatal follow-up practices persist. Standardized follow-up has potential benefits of including facilitating multi-centered research, site benchmarking, and continuity of care for families who move.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".