Neonatal, maternal and invasive procedures factors associated with late neonatal sepsis in the period 2011-2020 systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To review, evaluate and synthesize available literature on neonatal and maternal factors and invasive procedures associated with late neonatal sepsis during the last ten years. Methods: The databases used for the bibliographic search were: Pubmed/Medline, LILACS, SciELO, and Google Scholar. Analytical studies investigating risk factors for late neonatal sepsis by stages (title, abstract and full text) were selected. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Heterogeneity was set, and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed for the following risk factors: gender, gestational age, birth weight, Apgar score at 5 min, premature rupture of membranes, route of delivery, use of a central venous catheter, and ventilation. Mechanics. The effect was measured with an odds ratio. The certainty of the evidence was determined using the GRADE methodology. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO. Results: Eight studies from 633 records were collected. Heterogeneity was high. Three male studies OR: 1.97(0.26-14.59) p=0.03; I2 =80%, prematurity 2 studies OR: 2.48 (1.13-5.45); p=0.04; I2 =72%, use of central venous catheter 4 studies – OR: 3.83 (1.07 – 13.71) p<0.01; I2 =89% and mechanical ventilation 4 studies OR: 2.83 (1.42 – 5.68); p<0.01; I2 =86%) were independent factors for the development of late neonatal sepsis. Studies had the lowest comparability assessment score when the risk of bias was applied. The results had low certainty of evidence. Interpretation: Male sex, prematurity, use of a central venous catheter, and mechanical ventilation are risk factors for late sepsis.
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 | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".