Does the Head Position Affect Neonatal Lateral Ventricular Volume?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether there are differences in the lateral ventricular volumes, measured by three-dimensional ultrasound (3D US) depending on the posture of the neonate (right and left lateral decubitus). STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective analysis of the lateral ventricular volumes of preterm neonates recruited from Victoria Hospital, London, Ontario (June 2018-November 2019). A total of 24 premature neonates were recruited. The first cohort of 18 unstable premature neonates were imaged with 3D US in their current sides providing 15 right-sided and 16 left-sided 3D US images. The neonates in the second cohort of six relatively stable infants were imaged after positioning in each lateral decubitus position for 30 minutes, resulting in 40 3D US images obtained from 20 posture change sessions. The images were segmented and the ventricle volumes in each lateral posture were compared with determine whether the posture of the head influenced the volume of the upper and lower ventricle. RESULTS: , respectively, after 30 minutes in the left lateral posture. Our results failed to show a statistically significant difference in ventricular volumes dependence on posture. CONCLUSION: Head positioned to any lateral side for 30 minutes does not have any effect on the lateral ventricular volumes of neonates. KEY POINTS: · Three-dimensional cranial ultrasound can measure neonatal ventricle volume.. · Ventricle volume in each lateral ventricle may be affected by posture of the neonate.. · The 30 minutes in any lateral posture is not sufficient to create volume difference in lateral ventricles..
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".