RE: Position Statement: Using probiotics in paediatric populations, PCH Dec 2022, 27, 482–491
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I think the CPS position statement for probiotics for preterm infants needs review/clarification. Under the heading NEONATAL SEPSIS and MORTALTY, 25 studies are referenced, however only one study (Wang et al.) used probiotics for unwell infants, and they were term infants. The remaining studies involved the use of prophylactic probiotics for preterm infants. Meta-analysis of those studies found a reduction in sepsis and death. Surely your conclusion should be that there is sufficient evidence that prophylactic probiotics may reduce the risk of sepsis and death in preterm infants. There is little to no evidence for using probiotics to treat sepsis, as the position paper suggests. Under NECROTIZING ENTEROCOLITIS (NEC) many of the same studies are referenced. It should be noted that not all randomized studies separately reported on infants with birth weight less than 1000 g. Although there is more limited data specific to this subgroup, there is no reason to believe that probiotics do not benefit extremely low birth weight infants, nor that they may cause harm.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.263 | 0.228 |
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".