MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922242548 · doi:10.1186/s12887-019-1414-x

Prevalence and burden of illness of treated hemolytic neonatal hyperbilirubinemia in a privately insured population in the United States

2019· article· en· W2922242548 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tzy‐Chyi Yu, Chi Nguyen, Nancy Ruiz, Siting Zhou, Xian Zhang, E. Boing, Hiangkiat Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pediatrics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Health and Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsMedicinePopulationPediatricsEnvironmental healthIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of hemolytic neonatal hyperbilirubinemia (NHB) is not well characterized, and economic burden at the population level is poorly understood. This study evaluated the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and economic burden of hemolytic NHB newborns receiving treatment in U.S. real-world settings. METHODS: This cohort study used administrative claims from 01/01/2011 to 08/31/2017. The treated cohort had hemolytic NHB diagnosis and received phototherapy, intravenous immunoglobulin, and/or exchange transfusions. They were matched with non-NHB newborns who had neither NHB nor related treatments on the following: delivery hospital/area, gender, delivery route, estimated gestational age (GA), health plan eligibility, and closest date of birth within 5 years. Inferential statistics were reported. RESULTS: The annual NHB prevalence was 29.6 to 31.7%; hemolytic NHB, 1.8 to 2.4%; treated hemolytic NHB, 0.46 to 0.55%, between 2011 and 2016. The matched analysis included 1373 pairs ≥35 weeks GA. The treated hemolytic NHB cohort had significantly more birth trauma and hemorrhage (4.5% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.003), vacuum extractor affecting newborn (1.9% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.014), and polycythemia neonatorum (0.8% vs. 0%, p = 0.001) than the matched non-NHB cohort. The treated hemolytic NHB cohort also had significantly longer mean birth hospital stays (4.5 vs. 3.0 days, p < 0.001), higher level 2-4 neonatal intensive care admissions (15.7% vs. 2.4, 15.9% vs. 2.8 and 10.6% vs. 2.5%, respectively, all p < 0.001) and higher 30-day readmission (8.7% vs. 1.7%, p < 0.001). One-month and one-year average total costs of care were significantly higher for the treated hemolytic NHB cohort vs. the matched non-NHB cohort, $14,405 vs. $5527 (p < 0.001) and $21,556 vs. $12,986 (p < 0.001), respectively. The average costs for 30-day readmission among newborns who readmitted were $13,593 for the treated hemolytic NHB cohort and $3638 for the matched non-NHB cohort, p < 0.001. The authors extrapolated GA-adjusted prevalence of treated hemolytic NHB in the U.S. newborn population ≥ 35 weeks GA and estimated an incremental healthcare expenditure of $177.0 million during the first month after birth in 2016. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of treated hemolytic NHB was 4.6-5.5 patients per 1000 newborns. This high-risk hemolytic NHB imposed substantial burdens of healthcare resource utilization and incremental costs on newborns, their caregivers, and the healthcare system.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PediatricsSame topicNeonatal Health and BiochemistryFrench-language works237,207