Liveborn children with trisomy 18: A retrospective review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Historically, children born alive with trisomy 18 were considered to have a lethal genetic condition such that no medical interventions were provided. While survival is now recognized to be possible, these children's lives include aspects of technological dependency, medical complexity, and neurodevelopmental disabilities. Objectives: The primary aim of this study was to describe the outcomes of a contemporary Canadian population-based cohort of children born alive with trisomy 18. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted to review the records of children born alive with trisomy 18 from January 2012 to December 2023 in Central/Northern Alberta. Demographic and clinical information were abstracted, including features reported in the literature associated with morbidity and mortality. Outcomes were described, including technological dependency, time spent in the hospital, and survival. Results: In total, 37 liveborn infants with complete trisomy 18 were identified. While most died in hospital following medical-surgical interventions and/or comfort-care palliation, nine were discharged home. All of these children had been born at term with a birthweight ≥1750 g. While they relied on medical technologies such as home oxygen and feeding tubes at the time of discharge, most were able to spend a considerable amount of time at home rather than being re-hospitalized. At the time of this review, four remain alive varying in age from 6 to 9 years. Conclusions: Trisomy 18 is not a homogeneous clinical condition. Some children may have their lives extended to spend their lives at home with their families.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".