MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288747418 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101597

Long-term expiratory airflow of infants born moderate-late preterm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4288747418 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Cassidy Du Berry, Christopher Nesci, Jeanie L.Y. Cheong, Tara L FitzGerald, Rheanna Mainzer, Sarath Ranganathan, Lex W. Doyle, Elianne J.L.E. Vrijlandt, Liam Welsh

Bibliographic record

VenueEClinicalMedicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilCentre of Research Excellence in Newborn Medicine, Murdoch Children's Research InstituteTerveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitosNational Health and Medical Research CouncilSchool of Medicine, Johns Hopkins UniversityJohns Hopkins UniversityState Government of VictoriaUniversity of BernMcGill UniversityInselspital, Universitätsspital Bern
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisTerm (time)PediatricsIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Moderate-late preterm (MLP; 32 to <37 weeks' gestation) birth is associated with reduced expiratory airflow during child, adolescent and adult years.However, some studies have reported only minimal airflow limitation and hence it is unclear if clinical assessment in later life is warranted.Our aim was to compare maximal expiratory airflow in children and adults born MLP with term-born controls, and with expected norms. MethodsWe systematically reviewed studies reporting z-scores for spirometric indices (forced expired volume in 1 second [FEV 1 ], forced vital capacity [FVC], FEV 1 /FVC ratio and forced expiratory flow at 25-75% of FVC [FEF 25-75% ]) from participants born MLP aged five years or older, with or without a term-born control group from 4 databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Emcare).Publications were searched for between the 22 nd of September 2021 to the 29 th of September 2021.A meta-analysis of eligible studies was conducted using a random effects model.The study protocol was published in PROSPERO (CRD #42021281518).Findings We screened 4970 articles and identified 18 relevant studies, 15 of which were eligible for meta-analysis (8 with term-born controls and 7 without).Compared with controls, MLP participants had lower z-scores (mean difference [95% confidence interval] I 2 ) for FEV 1 : -0.22 [-0.35, -0.09] 49.3%, FVC: -0.23 [-0.4,-0.06] 71.8%, FEV 1 /FVC: -0.11 [-0.20 to -0.03] 9.3% and FEF 25-75% : -0.27 [-0.41 to -0.12] 21.9%.Participants born MLP also had lower z-scores, on average, when compared with a z-score of 0 (mean [95% CI] I 2 ) for FEV 1 : -0.26 [-0.40 to -0.11] 85.2%, FVC: -0.18 [-0.34 to -0.02] 88.3%, FEV 1 /FVC: -0.24 [-0.43 to -0.05] 90.5% and FEF 25-75% : -0.33 [-0.54 to -0.20] 94.7%.Interpretation Those born MLP had worse expiratory airflows than those born at term, and compared with norms, although reductions were modest.Clinicians should be aware that children and adults born MLP may be at higher risk of obstructive lung disease compared with term-born peers.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.030
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.340
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEClinicalMedicineSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207