MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921441745 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxz024

Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of pulmonary hypertension in preterm infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia

2019· article· en· W2921441745 on OpenAlexaff
Katelyn MacKenzie, Kathy Cunningham, Sumesh Thomas, Tapas Mondal, Salhab el Helou, Prakesh S. Shah, Amit Mukerji

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBronchopulmonary dysplasiaMedicineIncidence (geometry)Gestational agePediatricsLogistic regressionCohortRisk factorCohort studyPulmonary hypertensionInternal medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence and risk factors for pulmonary hypertension (PH) in preterm infants with moderate to severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and to compare short-term outcomes. METHODS: Preterm infants <32 weeks gestation born August 2013 through July 2015 with moderate to severe BPD at 36 weeks postmenstrual age were categorized into BPD-PH (exposure) and BPD-noPH (control) groups. RESULTS: Of 92 infants with BPD, 87 had echocardiographic assessment, of whom 24 (28%) had PH. On multiple logistic regression after adjustment for gestational age and sex, no significant risk factors for PH were identified based on data from this cohort. There were no differences in resource utilization or clinical outcomes including survival to discharge. CONCLUSION: Approximately one out of four patients with moderate to severe BPD were identified as having PH. No significant risk factors for PH were identified. No differences in outcomes were identified for those with and without PH.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207