MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389775437 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000036557

A meta-analysis of adverse effects of retinopathy of prematurity on neurodevelopment in preterm infants

2023· review· en· W4389775437 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lan Fang, Chan Wang, Yang Yanzhang, Jiajia Feng, Fengqin Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinopathy of Prematurity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetinopathy of prematurityMeta-analysisAdverse effectPediatricsGestational agePregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) increases with the survival of late preterm infants, but its relationship with neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants remains controversial. To investigate the relationship between ROP and its severity and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis. All relevant literature before November 2022 were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, Wan fang Data, and VIP Database. According to the inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria, eligible literature were included to conduct clinical trial quality assessment, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3. Data extraction, quality assessment, and meta-analysis were performed independently by 2 people. Mean difference or standardized mean difference of motor, language and cognitive scores (Bayley III or Bayley II) were used as effect sizes for continuous data analysis, all of which were represented by 95% CI. For heterogeneity (I2 ≥ 50% or P < .10), a random effects model was used, otherwise a fixed effects model was used. RESULTS: A total of 6 literature were included. The results of the ROP group for motor (comprehensive motor, proportional motor, and fine motor), language and cognitive scores were -5.57 (95%CI, -1.43 to 0.04), -0.95 (95%CI, 1.4-0.50), -1.34 (95% CI, 1.77-0.92), -1.75 (95% CI, 2.26-1.24) and -5.56 (95% CI, 9.56-1.57). Additionally, the results of severe ROP group for motor (comprehensive motor, proportional motor, fine motor), language and cognitive scores were -8.32 (95%CI, -8.91 to 7.74), -1.10 (95%CI, -1.83 to -0.36), -1.08 (95%CI, -1.75 to -0.41), -7.03 (95%CI, -7.71 to 6.35), and -7.96 (95%CI, -8.5 to -7.42). CONCLUSIONS: The Bayley Scale scores of the ROP group were lower than those of the not ROP group, and the scores of the severe ROP were significantly lower than those of the not severe ROP group. These findings suggest that ROP can indeed delay motor, language and cognitive, especially in severe cases.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicRetinopathy of Prematurity StudiesFrench-language works237,207