Neurological Outcome Following Newborn Encephalopathy With and Without Perinatal Infection: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Studies have suggested that neurological outcome may differ in newborns with encephalopathy with and without perinatal infection. We aimed to systematically review this association. Methods: We conducted this systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Studies were obtained from four databases including Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Database. Newborns with encephalopathy with and without markers of perinatal infection were compared with regard to neurodevelopmental assessments, neurological disorders, and early biomarkers of brain damage. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: We screened 4,284 studies of which eight cohort studies and one case-control study met inclusion criteria. A narrative synthesis was composed due to heterogeneity between studies. Six studies were classified as having low risk of bias, while three studies were classified as having high risk of bias. Across all outcomes, the quality of evidence was very low. The neurological outcome was similar in newborns with encephalopathy with and without markers of perinatal infection. Conclusions: Further studies of higher quality are needed to clarify whether perinatal infection may affect neurological outcome following newborn encephalopathy. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ , identifier CRD42020185717.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".