Publication Recommendations to Report Laboratory Data of Neonates – a Modified Delphi Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical and analytical information on laboratory data of neonates in scientific publications is sparse and incomplete. Furthermore, interpreting neonatal laboratory data can be complex due to their time-dependent and developmental physiology, and paucity of well-established age-appropriate reference ranges for neonates. This study aims to develop publication recommendations to report laboratory data of neonates to enhance the quality of these data in research and clinical care. METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used to develop recommendations in cooperation with the International Neonatal Consortium. A Core Group, including different stakeholders, was responsible for developing the recommendations, in collaboration with a Reflection Group, responsible for providing additional input. RESULTS: The recommendations were classified into three categories: 'Clinical Characteristics', 'Bio-analytical Information' and 'Data-analytical Information'. These were each divided into 'Core Data' (always to be reported) and 'Supplemental Considerations' (to be reported when considered relevant to the study). CONCLUSION: Our recommendations provide guidance on standardization of neonatal laboratory data in publications. This will enhance the comparison, replication, and application of study results in research initiatives and clinical practice. Furthermore, these recommendations also serve as foundational work to develop reference ranges for neonatal laboratory values by standardizing the quality of information needed for such efforts. IMPACT: Standardized reporting of neonatal laboratory data in scientific publications will enhance the comparison, replication, and application of study results in research initiatives and clinical practice, as well as improve reporting to regulatory agencies. To integrate multistakeholder perspectives, a modified Delphi approach was used to develop publication recommendations which strengthens the applicability of the recommendations. Implementation of standardization will likely improve the overall quality of neonatal clinical research and neonatal healthcare. In addition, these recommendations are foundational to develop reference ranges for neonatal laboratory values by standardizing the quality of information needed for such efforts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".