Antenatal corticosteroids and outcomes in gastroschisis: A multicenter retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In gastroschisis, there is evidence to suggest that gut dysfunction develops secondary to bowel inflammation; we aimed to evaluate the effect of maternal antenatal corticosteroids administered for obstetric reasons on time to full enteral feeds in a multicenter cohort study of gastroschisis infants. METHODS: A three center, retrospective cohort study (1992-2013) with linked fetal/neonatal gastroschisis data was conducted. The primary outcome measure was time to full enteral feeds (a surrogate measure for bowel function) and secondary outcome measure was length of hospital stay. Analysis included Mann-Whitney and Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 500 patients included in the study, 69 (GA at birth 34 [25-38] weeks) received antenatal corticosteroids and 431 (GA at birth 37 [31-41] weeks) did not. Antenatal corticosteroids had no effect on the rate of reaching full feeds (Hazard ratio HR 1.0 [95% CI: 0.8-1.4]). However, complex gastroschisis (HR 0.3 [95% CI: 0.2-0.4]) was associated with an increased time to reach full feeds and later GA at birth (HR 1.1 per week increase in GA [95% CI: 1.1-1.2]) was associated with a decreased time to reach full feeds. CONCLUSION: Maternal antenatal corticosteroids use, under current antenatal steroid protocols, in gastroschisis is not associated with an improvement in neonatal outcomes such as time to full enteral feeds or length of hospital stay.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".