Outcomes and resource usage of infants born at ≤ 25 weeks gestation in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the outcomes and resource usage of infants born at ≤ 25 weeks gestational age (GA). METHODS: Retrospective study of infants born between April 2009 and September 2011 at ≤ 25 weeks' GA in all neonatal intensive care units in Canada with follow-up in the neonatal follow-up clinics. Short-term morbidities, neurodevelopmental impairment, significant neurodevelopmental impairment, and resource utilization of infants born at ≤ 24 weeks were compared with neonates born at 25 weeks. RESULTS: Of 803 neonates discharged alive, 636 (80.4%) infants born at ≤ 25 weeks' GA were assessed at 18 to 24 months. Caesarean delivery, lower birth weight, and less antenatal steroid exposure were more common in infants born ≤ 24 weeks as compared with 25 weeks. They had significantly higher incidences of ductus arteriosus ligation, severe intracranial hemorrhage, retinopathy of prematurity as well as longer length of stay, central line days, days on respiratory support, days on total parenteral nutrition, days on antibiotics, and need for postnatal steroids. Neurodevelopmental impairment rates were 68.9, 64.5, and 55.6% (P=0.01) and significant neurodevelopmental impairment rates were 39.3, 29.6, and 20.9% (P<0.01) for infants ≤ 23, 24, and 25 weeks GA, respectively. Postdischarge service referrals were higher for those ≤ 23 weeks. Nonsurviving infants born at 25 weeks GA had higher resource utilization during admission than infants born less than 25 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse outcomes and resource usage were significantly higher among infants born ≤ 24 weeks GA as compared with 25 weeks GA.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".