MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4231880407 · doi:10.1093/pch/15.10.640

Letter to the Editor

2010· letter· en· W4231880407 on OpenAlexaff
Gustavo Pelligra

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2010
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsVictoria General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Re: Hartfield D. Iron deficiency is a public health problem in Canadian infants and children. Paediatr Child Health 2010;15(6):347–50. To the Editor: I read, with great interest, the commentary by Dr Hartfield that was published in the July/August issue of Paediatrics & Child Health. I agree with the author that iron deficiency in infancy and childhood is an important public health problem. Therefore, it should be addressed at a national level using the best available evidence to date. I would like to bring to the readers' attention an important preventive strategy not mentioned in Dr Hartfield's article. Delayed cord clamping has been shown to improve the iron status in infancy. A systematic review of 11 trials involving nearly 3000 subjects (1) found higher ferritin levels at six months in the late clamping group. No significant side effects to the mother or the infant, other than increased risk of jaundice requiring phototherapy, were found. I believe that the current evidence supports the implementation of delayed cord clamping in clinical practice. It is an inexpensive and universally available intervention to improve the iron status of infants, particularly in groups at high risk of developing iron deficiency. Recently released neonatal resuscitation guidelines (2) also support this intervention for all newborn infants not requiring resuscitation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0400.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.012

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research→French-language works237,207→