Pulmonary important outcomes after extremely preterm birth: Parental perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe pulmonary important outcomes (PIO) reported by parents of children born extremely preterm. METHODS: Over 1-year, all parents of children aged 18 months-7-years born <29 weeks' GA were asked regarding their perspectives. The proportion of parents who described PIO and the themes they invoked were examined. Results were analysed using mixed methods. RESULTS: Among parental responses (n = 285, 98% participation rate), 44% spoke about PIO, invoking 24 themes pertaining to NICU hospitalisation and/or long-term respiratory health. Some themes had an impact primarily on the child (e.g. exercise limitation), while the majority had an impact on the whole family (e.g. hospital readmissions). None mentioned oxygen at 36 weeks nor bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). The proportion of responses invoking PIO were statistically similar between parents of children with and without BPD, born before or after 25 weeks or with birthweight < or ≥750 g. PIO were more likely to be mentioned in males and among those readmitted for respiratory problems. CONCLUSION: Parents describe many PIO, most related to the functional impact of lung disease on their child (and family), rather than the diagnosis of BPD itself. Most of these PIO are not primary outcomes in large neonatal trials nor collected in neonatal databases.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".