Comparison of outcomes between morphine and concomitant morphine and clonidine treatments for neonatal abstinence syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine whether adding clonidine to the morphine regimen for treatment of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) is associated with a shorter length of treatment compared with morphine alone. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort design, infants with NAS resulting from opioid exposure delivered between 2006 and 2015 (n = 174) were identified using the Nova Scotia Atlee Perinatal Database (NSAPD). Maternal and infant characteristics were collected from the NSAPD. The database was augmented with chart review for treatment information. RESULTS: The incidence of NAS in the study population increased fivefold from 1.48/1000 live births in 2007 to 7.50/1000 live births in 2015. Of the 174 infants, 22 were treated with morphine and 100 were treated with morphine + clonidine. Longer length of treatment (p = 0.004) and higher peak morphine dose (p = 0.045) were observed in the combination group. CONCLUSION: The increase in the incidence of NAS is consistent with recent published reports. The increase in length of treatment and peak morphine dose in the morphine + clonidine group is in marked contrast to previous work on this treatment combination. Further study on the impact of clinical characteristics such as methadone and antidepressant exposure on the association is warranted.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".