Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is currently no consensus on the management of Pierre Robin Sequence (PRS) in the neonatal period.Prone positioning and naso-pharyngeal tubes are used in many neonatal units, with tracheostomy if these therapies fail.Bilateral Internal Mandibular Distraction (BIMD) is an alternative but clinicians remain divided as to the long-term benefi ts.This study reports 11 years experience of offering BIMD to infants with moderate-severe upper airway obstruction (UAO) in our neonatal unit.Method: The case records of all patients admitted between 2001 and 2011 with a diagnosis of PRS were reviewed.Patients were divided into those who underwent BIMD before 6 weeks of age, and those who did not.These groups were further classifi ed into isolated PRS and syndromic subgroups and their progress compared.Particular attention was given to mode of feeding and ongoing UAO post discharge.Results: 87 infants were admitted with PRS; 31 underwent BIMD.Complete data is available for 54 infants to date, one died <6 weeks of age.The incidence of ongoing UAO is shown in table 1 (below).Review of feeding demonstrated that 7/15 (47%) of isolated PRS infants undergoing BIMD were exclusively suck-feeding at discharge compared with 9/26 (34%) in the non-BIMD group (p = NS).Table 1.Cases of ongoing UAO post discharge.NS = non signifi cant Ongoing UAO: BIMD Ongoing UAO: Non-BIMD p value Total PRS 3/21 (14%) 14/32 (44%) p < 0.03 Isolated PRS 1/15 (7%) 13/26 (50%) p < 0.02 Syndromic 2/6 (34%) 1/6 (17%) p = NS Conclusions: Ongoing UAO remains a signifi cant long-term issue for many patients with PRS.Offering BIMD in the neonatal period may help alleviate this burden in those with moderate-severe obstruction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.577 | 0.316 |
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".