MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005133166 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1905593

Lower versus Traditional Treatment Threshold for Neonatal Hypoglycemia

2020· article· en· W3005133166 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Van Kempen, P. Frank Eskes, Debbie H. G. M. Nuytemans, Johanna H. van der Lee, Lea M. Dijksman, Nicole R. van Veenendaal, Flip J. P. C. M. van der Hulst, Rob Moonen, Luc J. I. Zimmermann, Ellen P. van ’t Verlaat, Minouche van Dongen-van Baal, Ben A. Semmekrot, Hélène G. Stas, Ron H T van Beek, José J. Vlietman, Peter H. Dijk, J. Termote, Rogier C.J. de Jonge, Amerik C. de Mol, Marianne W. A. Huysman, Joke H. Kok, Martin Offringa, Nicole Boluyt

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersZonMw
KeywordsHypoglycemiaNeonatal hypoglycemiaMedicineInternal medicinePregnancyInsulinBiologyGestation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, many newborns who are preterm, small or large for gestational age, or born to mothers with diabetes are screened for hypoglycemia, with a goal of preventing brain injury. However, there is no consensus on a treatment threshold that is safe but also avoids overtreatment. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial involving 689 otherwise healthy newborns born at 35 weeks of gestation or later and identified as being at risk for hypoglycemia, we compared two threshold values for treatment of asymptomatic moderate hypoglycemia. We sought to determine whether a management strategy that used a lower threshold (treatment administered at a glucose concentration of <36 mg per deciliter [2.0 mmol per liter]) would be noninferior to a traditional threshold (treatment at a glucose concentration of <47 mg per deciliter [2.6 mmol per liter]) with respect to psychomotor development at 18 months, assessed with the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, third edition, Dutch version (Bayley-III-NL; scores range from 50 to 150 [mean {±SD}, 100±15]), with higher scores indicating more advanced development and 7.5 points (one half the SD) representing a clinically important difference). The lower threshold would be considered noninferior if scores were less than 7.5 points lower than scores in the traditional-threshold group. RESULTS: Bayley-III-NL scores were assessed in 287 of the 348 children (82.5%) in the lower-threshold group and in 295 of the 341 children (86.5%) in the traditional-threshold group. Cognitive and motor outcome scores were similar in the two groups (mean scores [±SE], 102.9±0.7 [cognitive] and 104.6±0.7 [motor] in the lower-threshold group and 102.2±0.7 [cognitive] and 104.9±0.7 [motor] in the traditional-threshold group). The prespecified inferiority limit was not crossed. The mean glucose concentration was 57±0.4 mg per deciliter (3.2±0.02 mmol per liter) in the lower-threshold group and 61±0.5 mg per deciliter (3.4±0.03 mmol per liter) in the traditional-threshold group. Fewer and less severe hypoglycemic episodes occurred in the traditional-threshold group, but that group had more invasive diagnostic and treatment interventions. Serious adverse events in the lower-threshold group included convulsions (during normoglycemia) in one newborn and one death. CONCLUSIONS: In otherwise healthy newborns with asymptomatic moderate hypoglycemia, a lower glucose treatment threshold (36 mg per deciliter) was noninferior to a traditional threshold (47 mg per deciliter) with regard to psychomotor development at 18 months. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; HypoEXIT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN79705768.).

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations117
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patientsFrench-language works237,207