At what weight should preterm infants be transferred from incubator to open cot?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A preterm infant born at 28 weeks’ gestation is 5 weeks old, weighs 1600 g and nursed in an incubator. During the round, the medical team instructs the nurse to transfer the infant to open cot. The nurse in charge is concerned that weaning the infant from incubator to cot at this weight might affect the temperature stability, weight gain and may delay the discharge of the infant. The third-year paediatric resident offers to review the literature and report the findings to the multidisciplinary team. In a medically stable preterm infant with a birth weight of less than 1600 g, not on any respiratory support, nursed in incubator ( patient ), whether transferring the infant from incubator to unheated open cot at a lower weight ( 1700 g) ( comparison ) will affect the temperature stability, weight gain and length of hospital stay of the infant ( outcomes )? ### Study selection Randomised or quasirandomised clinical trials, systematic reviews and observational studies comparing two or more different weights for transferring the infant from incubator to cot were included. Included studies should report one or more outcomes mentioned above in the question. Descriptive studies, conference abstracts, letter to the editor and case series were excluded. ### Search strategy PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to 4 December 2018 for following terms: ((neonate) OR (preterm) OR (premature) OR (infant) OR (low birth weight)) AND ((weaning) OR (transfer) OR (discontinue)) AND ((incubator) OR (cot)). The search returned 118 abstracts (PubMed: 105 records and Cochrane CENTRAL: 13 records). The references of the included studies were also searched. The list of studies excluded following a detailed review, including the reasons for exclusion, are provided in online supplementary file 1. Three systematic reviews,1–3 five randomised controlled trials4–8 and three observational studies9–11 were identified for …
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 | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".