MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimising nutrition during therapeutic hypothermia

2018· editorial· en· W2897363088 on OpenAlexaff
Shalini Ojha, Jon Dorling, Cheryl Battersby, Nicholas T. Longford, Chris Gale

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood Fetal & Neonatal · 2018
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
FundersHealth Technology Assessment ProgrammeMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsHypothermiaMedicineParenteral nutritionEnteral administrationEncephalopathyIntensive care medicinePediatricsAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is little evidence to inform provision of enteral or parenteral nutrition to infants with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE) during and soon after therapeutic hypothermia; as a consequence, clinical practice is both variable and changing. A 2014 UK survey found that 79% (33 of 42) of responding neonatal units routinely withheld enteral nutrition during cooling; 3 years later, a similar survey found that 41% (20 of 49) of responding units reported withholding enteral nutrition.1 The latter study also reports wide variation in how, when and how much to feed, and in the use of parenteral nutrition. Internationally, practice is even more variable: withholding enteral feeds is practised almost universally2 in some countries, while in others, milk feeding during hypothermia is routine.3 Here we discuss the limited evidence available to inform enteral and parenteral nutrition during therapeutic hypothermia.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in Childhood Fetal & NeonatalSame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207