Trends in sex-specific differences in outcomes in extreme preterms: progress or natural barriers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the differences and trends of outcomes of preterm boys and girls born at <29 weeks' gestation. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Data collected by the Canadian Neonatal Network. PATIENTS: Neonates born at <29 weeks' gestation between January 2007 and December 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We examined rate differences in mortality, major morbidities (bronchopulmonary dysplasia, severe brain injury, retinopathy of prematurity, necrotising enterocolitis and late-onset sepsis) and care practices (antenatal steroids, magnesium sulfate, maternal antibiotics, ventilation and surfactant administration) between boys and girls and evaluated trends in these rate differences over the study period. Our primary outcome was a composite of mortality and any one of the five morbidities. RESULTS: Our study included 8219 boys and 6934 girls with median gestational age of 26 (IQR 25-28) weeks. The composite of death or major morbidity was more common in boys (adjusted risk ratio 1.07, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.10) and remained higher in boys over the study period. The gap between boys and girls for mortality, however, decreased over time: the slope for boys was -0.043 (95% CI -0.071 to -0.015) and for girls was -0.012 (95% CI -0.045 to 0.020) (p=0.04). All other morbidities remained higher in boys. Care practices changed at similar rates between the sexes. CONCLUSION: The difference between the mortality rates for boys and girls decreased over the study period but the difference between rates of the major morbidities was unchanged. More research is needed to understand biological differences and outcome disparities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".