MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211051214 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004210

Interventions to prevent hypothermia at birth in preterm and/or low birthweight babies

2003· reference-entry· en· W4211051214 on OpenAlexaff
E McCall, FA Alderdice, Henry L. Halliday, J. Jenkins, Sunita Vohra

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2003
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestational agePediatricsPsychological interventionBirth weightHypothermiaLow birth weightObstetricsPregnancyAnesthesiaNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: PRIMARY OBJECTIVE The primary objective will be to assess the efficacy and safety of interventions, designed for the prevention of hypothermia in preterm and/or low birthweight infants, and applied within 10 minutes after birth in delivery suite, compared with routine thermal care. Sub‐group analyses will be carried out by intervention, by birthweight/gestational age and by developmental status of the country of study, to determine whether effectiveness varies according to: The interventions applied Birthweight and gestational age within the following categories: birthweight (<1500g), (1500g to 2500g) gestational age (<28wk), (28 to 32wk) and (33 to 37wk) The developmental status of the country in which the trial has been conducted based upon the UNICEF classification of a developing country (UNICEF 2002). SECONDARY OBJECTIVE The secondary objective will be to assess complications associated with prematurity and hypothermia.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.011
Bibliometrics0.0130.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.004

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207