Bibliographic record
Abstract
We thank Dr Gryn for his remarks. He makes an important point, and refers to the recommendations in the Canadian Paediatric Society Position Statement ‘Red blood cell transfusion in newborn infants’ (1) with respect to the neurodevelopmental outcome of extremely low birthweight infants and hemoglobin transfusion thresholds. He questions our use of the lower rather than higher thresholds of the PINT study (2) in our table of recommended thresholds. The relationship between transfusion threshold and neurodevelopmental outcome was addressed only in the PINT outcome study (3). These results were incorporated into the Cochrane review (4) and into the Position Statement (1). At the level of the trial itself, there were three results that have a bearing on neurodevelopment and on the statement recommendations. The primary composite outcome of the PINT study was death or neurodevelopmental disability, occurring in 45% of the low- and 38% of the high-threshold group (adjusted OR 1.45, confidence limits [CL] 0.94, 2.21; P=0.09). The preplanned secondary outcome of cognitive delay in survivors (MDI <70) was 24% versus 18% (adjusted OR 1.74 [CL 0.98, 3.11]); P=0.06. At the request of the journal reviewers and of the scientific community to which these results were presented, a post hoc secondary outcome was re-evaluated using an MDI <85. This yielded rates of 45% versus 34% (OR 1.81 [CL 1.12, 2.93]); P=0.016. No other post hoc outcomes were evaluated. The Cochrane Review reported all of these findings in its own tables, using unadjusted analyses. These analyses yielded similar but less statistically significant summary statistics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.157 | 0.085 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".