MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212890490 · doi:10.1055/a-1772-4637

Association of 24-Hour In-house Neonatologist Coverage with Outcomes of Extremely Preterm Infants

2022· article· en· W4212890490 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anthony Debay, Prakesh S. Shah, Abhay Lodha, Sandesh Shivananda, Stephanie Redpath, Mary Seshia, Jon Dorling, Anie Lapointe, Rody Canning, Lannae Strueby, Marc Beltempo

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Perinatology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHospital Admissions and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversité de MontréalUniversity of OttawaMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British ColumbiaMoncton HospitalDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of ManitobaMontreal Children's Hospital
FundersInstitute of Human Development, Child and Youth Health
KeywordsMedicineRetinopathy of prematurityOdds ratioNeonatologyBronchopulmonary dysplasiaGestational agePediatricsNeonatal intensive care unitNecrotizing enterocolitisConfidence intervalIntensive careSepsisEmergency medicinePregnancyInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess if 24-hour in-house neonatologist (NN) coverage is associated with delivery room (DR) resuscitation/stabilization and outcomes among inborn infants <29 weeks' gestational age (GA). STUDY DESIGN: Survey-linked cohort study of 2,476 inborn infants of 23 to 28 weeks' gestation, admitted between 2014 and 2015 to Canadian Neonatal Network Level-3 neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) with a maternity unit. Exposures were classified using survey responses based on the most senior provider offering 24-hour in-house coverage: NN, fellow, and no NN/fellow. Primary outcome was death and/or major morbidity (bronchopulmonary dysplasia, severe neurological injury, late-onset sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, and retinopathy of prematurity). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association between exposures and outcomes and adjust for confounders. RESULTS: Among the 28 participating NICUs, most senior providers ensuring 24-hour in-house coverage were NN (32%, 9/28), fellows (39%, 11/28), and no NN/fellow (29%, 8/28). No NN/fellow coverage and 24-hour fellow coverage were associated with higher odds of infants receiving DR chest compressions/epinephrine compared with 24-hour NN coverage (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 4.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.12-10.6 and aOR = 3.33, 95% CI: 1.44-7.70, respectively). Rates of mortality/major morbidity did not differ significantly among the three groups: NN, 63% (249/395 infants); fellow, 64% (1092/1700 infants); no NN/fellow, 70% (266/381 infants). CONCLUSION: 24-hour in-house NN coverage was associated with lower rates of DR chest compressions/epinephrine. There was no difference in neonatal outcomes based on type of coverage; however, further studies are needed as ecological fallacy cannot be ruled out. KEY POINTS: · Lower rates of DR cardiopulmonary resuscitation with 24h in-house NN coverage. · The type of 24h in-house coverage was not associated with mortality and/or major morbidity.. · High-volume centers more often have 24h in-house neonatal fellow coverage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PerinatologySame topicHospital Admissions and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207