Optimizing Surgical vs. Non-Surgical Management of Omphalocele in Newborns: Challenges in Resource-Poor Settings vs. American and Canadian Guidelines: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Omphalocele represents a significant surgical challenge in developing nations with poor resource settings and has been reported to have higher morbidity and mortality rates. This systematic review’s objective is to evaluate the challenges of surgical versus non-surgical management of omphalocele in newborns in resource-poor settings (developing nations) in comparison to developed nations, particularly the United States and Canada. For this study, a methodology comprising a literature search and review has been utilized. The review entails the search for pertinent literature that focuses on the management of omphalocele in poor resource settings and developing nations. In this review, giant omphalocele has been defined as >5 cm with 50% of the liver being the content of the omphalocele sac. Further, in resource-poor environments, including developing nations, higher rates of neonatal mortality and morbidity due to omphalocele in newborns have been linked to the existence of various related anomalies. However, in developed nations, including the United States and Canada, the development of effective guidelines and advancements in omphalocele management have resulted in improved survival rates and a reduction in mortality and morbidity rates among neonates with omphalocele. However, despite the improvements made in antenatal diagnosis and postnatal management of omphalocele, the general survival rates have remained stagnant at 47.5%. As such, more efforts are necessary to determine the best treatment approaches to improve survival rates and eliminate the various risk factors for mortality.
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 | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".