Mean platelet volume/count and mortality in extremely low birth weight infants of preeclamptic mothers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare complete blood count (CBC) parameters in extremely low birth weight (ELBW) infants born to mothers with and without preeclampsia and to evaluate whether these parameters could be used to determine the prognosis of infants born to mothers with preeclampsia. METHOD: Thirty-eight infants of preeclamptic mothers (IPM) and 77 infants of non-preeclamptic mothers (INPM) were included in the study. The CBC parameters of ELBW infants were evaluated at the sixth hour of life. RESULTS: The mean hemoglobin level of the IPM group was higher than the INPM group (16.4±2.4 vs 15.3±2.4; p=0.02). The mean platelet count of the IPM Group was significantly lower than the INPM group (168±65 vs 206±78; p=0.008). Overall and 7th day of life survival of infants were not different between the groups, but there was a correlation between platelet count of the IPM group and mortality in the first 7 days of life and overall mortality (r=-0.38, p=0.023 and r=-0.36, p=0.029). A cut-off point of 0.4 had significant predictive value for mortality (sensitivity of 91%, specificity of 66%). CONCLUSION: Hemoglobin and platelet counts were statistically different in ELBW infants born to preeclamptic mothers compared with non-preeclamptic mothers. Although the survival was not different between the two groups, platelet count and MPV/platelet count ratio were significantly correlated with overall mortality and mortality in the first 7 days of life in infants of preeclamptic mothers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".