A234 ELEVATED DIRECT BILIRUBIN DOES NOT PREDICT ELEVATED CONJUGATED BILIRUBIN IN NEONATES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Neonatal cholestasis guidelines consider direct and conjugated bilirubin to be equivalent because the delta bilirubin component of direct bilirubin is assumed to be negligible. Since 2015 William Osler Health System automatically measures conjugated bilirubin if the direct bilirubin is 20 µmol/L or greater in patients under 3 months old. This afforded us the opportunity to assess if direct bilirubin accurately reflects conjugated bilirubin. Aims To determine if direct bilirubin reliably reflects conjugated bilirubin levels in neonates and confirms the appropriateness of further investigation of neonatal cholestasis Methods Patient data from 2015 to 2024 was retrospectively collected and analyzed, focusing on neonates three months or younger with direct bilirubin levels of 20 µmol/L or higher. Both Direct and Conjugated bilirubin were measured using different assays. Main outcome measure was the difference between direct and conjugated bilirubin measurements. Results Results: 121 subjects were identified. Average direct bilirubin (32.0µmol/L) and average conjugated bilirubin (8.9µmol/L) are significantly different (p=0.008). A direct bilirubin below 22 µmol/L almost never results in a conjugated bilirubin above 2 µmol/L. Moreover, for a conjugated bilirubin of 17 or higher (the guideline trigger for neonatal cholestasis investigations), the lowest direct bilirubin measured was 34. Conclusions Direct Bilirubin is not an analogous proxy for conjugated bilirubin. Future guidelines should be modified to require confirming cholestasis with a conjugated bilirubin if direct bilirubin is the default tes Funding Agencies None
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".