MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2956134336 · doi:10.82308/25787

The effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping on newborn anemia: implications for clinical practice in the Peruvian Amazon

2010· article· en· W2956134336 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Brittany Blouin

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineAnemiaUmbilical cordThrombopoietinGynecologyPediatricsInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Des études ont démontré que retarder la coupure du cordon ombilical pourrait réduire les risques d'anémie infantile. Un plan d'étude pré/post a été utilisé pour déterminer l'efficacité d'une intervention visant à retarder la coupure du cordon. Des femmes ont été recrutées à l'Hôpital Iquitos (Pérou) pré- (N=112) et post-intervention (N=112). Le statut hématologique des mères a été quantifié, le moment où le cordon est coupée a été chronométré et le niveau d'hémoglobine des enfants à été mesuré. La coupure du cordon a été retardée de manière significative de 113 secondes suite à l'intervention (βajusté=113.2 secondes; 95% IC =96.6-129.9). L'anémie maternelle a été identifiée comme un facteur modifiant. Chez les enfants nés d'une mère anémique, le rapport de cotes pour l'anémie est de 0.59 pour chaque minute où la coupure du cordon est retardée. Ces résultats supportent le retardement de la coupure du cordon comme mesure pouvant réduire l'anémie infantile.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicGlobal Maternal and Child Health→French-language works237,207→