Neonatal Outcomes of Very Preterm or Very Low Birth Weight Triplets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the neonatal outcomes of very preterm triplets with those of matched singletons using a large international cohort. METHODS: A retrospective matched-cohort study of preterm triplets and singletons born between 2007 and 2013 in the International Network for Evaluation of Outcomes in neonates database countries and matched by gestational age, sex, and country of birth was conducted. The primary outcome was a composite of mortality or severe neonatal morbidity (severe neurologic injury, treated retinopathy of prematurity, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia). Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for model 1 (maternal hypertension and birth weight z score) and model 2 (variables in model 1, antenatal steroids, and mode of birth). Models were fitted with generalizing estimating equations and random effects modeling to account for clustering. RESULTS: A total of 6079 triplets of 24 to 32 weeks’ gestation or 500 to 1499 g birth weight and 18 232 matched singletons were included. There was no difference in the primary outcome between triplets and singletons (23.4% vs 24.0%, adjusted odds ratio: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.83–1.01 for model 1 and 1.00, 95% CI: 0.90–1.11 for model 2). Rates of severe neonatal morbidities did not differ significantly between triplets and singletons. The results were also similar for a subsample of the cohort (1648 triplets and 4944 matched singletons) born at 24 to 28 weeks’ gestation. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were identified in mortality or major neonatal morbidities between triplets who were very low birth weight or very preterm and matched singletons.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".