MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4221031396 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxab084

La prise en charge de la persistance du canal artériel chez les nouveau-nés prématurés

2022· article· fr· W4221031396 on OpenAlexaff
Souvik Mitra, Dany E. Weisz, Amish Jain, Geert ‘t Jong

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCanadian Paediatric Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La prise en charge de la persistance du canal artériel est l'un des aspects les plus litigieux des soins aux nouveau-nés prématurés. On peut la classer en deux grandes catégories : la prophylaxie et le traitement en cas de symptômes. L'administration prophylactique d'indométacine par voie intraveineuse chez les nouveau-nés d'extrême petit poids à la naissance peut limiter les graves hémorragies intraventriculaires. L'échocardiographie est systématiquement recommandée pour confirmer une persistance du canal artériel avant d'envisager le traitement en cas de symptômes, qui peut prendre la forme d'un traitement conservateur, d'une pharmacothérapie ou d'une fermeture invasive. L'ibuprofène doit être considéré comme le traitement pharmacologique de première intention dans cette situation. Une forte dose peut être à privilégier, particulièrement chez les nouveau-nés prématurés de plus de trois à cinq jours de vie. Si deux traitements pharmacologiques consécutifs échouent ou si la pharmacothérapie est contre-indiquée, on peut envisager une fermeture invasive en cas de symptômes marqués lorsque l'échocardiographie révèle des signes de shunt à fort volume à travers le canal artériel et de circulation pulmonaire excessive.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designCase report
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments→French-language works237,207→