The Finnegan Score for Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Revisited With Routine Electronic Data: Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The severity of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) may be assessed with the Finnegan score (FS). Since the FS is laborious and subjective, alternative ways of assessment may improve quality of care. Objective: In this pilot study, we examined associations between the FS and routine monitoring data obtained from the electronic health record system. Methods: The study included 205 neonates with NAS after intrauterine (n=23) or postnatal opioid exposure (n=182). Routine monitoring data were analyzed at 60±10 minutes (t-1) and 120±10 minutes (t-2) before each FS assessment. Within each time period, the mean for each variable was calculated. Readings were also normalized to individual baseline data for each patient and parameter. Mixed effects models were used to assess the effect of different variables. Results: Plots of vital parameters against the FS showed heavily scattered data. When controlling for several variables, the best-performing mixed effects model displayed significant effects of individual baseline-controlled mean heart rate (estimate 0.04, 95% CI 0.02-0.07) and arterial blood pressure (estimate 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.08) at t-1 with a goodness of fit (R2m) of 0.11. Conclusions: Routine electronic data can be extracted and analyzed for their correlation with FS data. Mixed effects models show small but significant effects after normalizing vital parameters to individual baselines.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".