Association between changes in urine output and successful indomethacin treatment for patent ductus arteriosus in preterm neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the relationship between changes in urine output during indomethacin treatment and ductal closure in preterm neonates. METHODS: It is a retrospective study in neonates ≤32 weeks who had received two courses of indomethacin for PDA treatment over a 5-year period. Indomethacin courses with pre- and post-echocardiography confirmation of PDA status were included. Various urine output indices were collected and compared between successful versus unsuccessful indomethacin courses. Indomethacin treatment success was defined as: (i) where PDA closed or became haemodynamically insignificant (hisPDA) after treatment and (ii) only including neonates where PDA had complete closure after treatment. ROC analysis was performed to examine predictive ability of urine output during indomethacin for treatment success. RESULTS: One hundred and eight indomethacin courses (first course: 52, second course: 56) in 80 neonates were included. The mean gestational age and birthweight were 25.4 ± 1.3 weeks and 762 ± 165 g, respectively. Irrespective of the definition used, there was no significant differences seen in any of urine output parameters between groups, except for a higher urine output during indomethacin associated with complete PDA closure (3.6 ± 1.3 vs. 3.0 ± 1.0 mL/kg/h, P = 0.02). The incidence of significant oliguria, hyponatraemia and need to withhold/delay indomethacin doses were also similar across groups. CONCLUSION: Urine output was not a useful predictor of ductal response to indomethacin treatment in preterm neonates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".