MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Proposed Core Outcomes After Neonatal Sepsis

2025· review· en· W4407902846 on OpenAlexaff
Petek Eylül Taneri, Linda Biesty, Jamie J Kirkham, Eleanor J. Molloy, Richard A. Polin, Aoife Branagan, Kondwani Kawaza, Mandy Daly, James L. Wynn, Lívia Nagy Bonnard, Fiona Quirke, Niranjan Kissoon, Magdalena Ohaja, Kateregga Bazilio, Éric Giannoni, Luregn J. Schlapbach, Denise Suguitani, Tobias Strunk, Barbara J. Stoll, Declan Devane

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDelphi methodLikert scaleSystematic reviewSepsisNeonatal sepsisInclusion (mineral)Health careFamily medicineIntensive care medicineMEDLINEPediatricsPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Sepsis is one of the leading causes of neonatal mortality. There is heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported in studies of neonatal sepsis. To address this challenge, a core outcome set (COS) for research on neonatal sepsis was needed. Objective: The Neonatal Sepsis Core Outcome Set (NESCOS) project aims to develop a COS for research evaluating the effectiveness of neonatal sepsis treatments. Evidence Review: For this consensus statement, the research team obtained ethics approval and used a 4-stage process: (1) a systematic review of qualitative studies, (2) a real-time Delphi (RTD) survey to identify important outcomes for consensus meetings, (3) consensus meetings to finalize the COS, and (4) dissemination of the findings. The study was conducted from May 2, 2022, to October 27, 2023. The steering group and project participants consisted of health care workers, researchers, academics, parents, and parent representatives from low-, middle-, and high-income countries. An RTD survey and consensus meetings were conducted, with measures including a 9-point Likert scale rating (where 1 indicated not at all important and 9 indicated critically important) for outcome importance and a minimum 80% agreement threshold among stakeholders for final COS inclusion. The systematic review identified 19 outcomes, which were combined with outcomes from previous systematic reviews of clinical trials. Findings: The RTD survey included 306 participants, leading to the identification of 55 outcomes for further discussion in consensus meetings. The finalized COS comprises 9 outcomes: all-cause mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, brain injury on imaging, neurologic status at discharge, escalation of antimicrobial therapy, central nervous system infections, multiorgan dysfunction, neurodevelopmental impairment, and quality of life of parents. Conclusions and Relevance: This consensus-based COS for research on neonatal sepsis treatments will help standardize the outcomes measured and reported, enhancing the comparability of research findings. Future efforts should focus on establishing standardized and reliable methods for measuring these outcomes.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207