MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3210135297 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxab061.001

5 Extremely Low Gestational Age Neonates and Resuscitation: Perspectives of Canadian Neonatologists

2021· article· en· W3210135297 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stacie Wood, Anita Cheng, Kevin Coughlin

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineResuscitationGestational ageDistressIntensive carePopulationNeonatal resuscitationNeonatal intensive care unitNeonatologyIntensive care medicinePediatricsEmergency medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Primary Subject area Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Background Resuscitation care planning for extremely low gestational age neonates (ELGANs) continues to be one of the most complex, ethically charged areas within paediatrics. Objectives This study sought to determine the current attitudes and practices of neonatologists in Canada, and to assess the moral distress associated with resuscitation decisions in the ELGAN population and current practices in an era of improved neonatal outcomes. It also aimed to explore the perspectives of adopting a shared decision-making approach, where further data with regard to best interests and prognosis are gathered in an individualized manner. Design/Methods This was a descriptive study employing an electronic survey constructed in REDCap®. The survey was distributed to neonatologists working in Level III NICUs across Canada and responses were collected from March to May 2020. Results 65 total survey responses were received. 78% of neonatologists expressed at least some moral distress when parents request non-resuscitation between 24 weeks 0 days and 24 weeks 6 days. Prognostic uncertainty with regard to individualized long-term outcome in an era with increased chances of morbidity-free survival was the most prominent factor identified as contributing to moral distress. 70% felt they would feel less moral distress deciding about goals of care after assessing the baby’s response to an initial trial of resuscitation at birth, and preferred an individualized approach to palliation decisions based on postnatal course and assessment, rather than making the decision based primarily on gestational age. Conclusion While most current practices support the option of non-resuscitation for infants born at less than 25 weeks, there is growing evidence of moral distress among Canadian neonatologists that suggests the consideration of resuscitation at 24 weeks and above is a more realistic approach in the current era of improved outcomes. Furthermore, our results suggest that Canadian neonatologists are ethically more comfortable developing plans for care postnatally, with more evidence to support prognostication, instead of antenatally, based solely on gestational age.

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)0.004
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→