MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7095076046

OBSTETRICS Attitudes of Canadian Neonatologists in Delivery Room Resuscitation of Newborns at Threshold of Viability

2015· article· en· W7095076046 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResuscitationPsychological interventionIntensive careNeonatologyGestationNeonatal resuscitation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: There is great debate regarding the extent of intensive care interventions for extremely premature newborns. In this report, we describe Canadian neonatologists ’ attitudes towards delivery room resuscitation decisions in neonates at the threshold of viability. Methods: We interviewed neonatologists (N = 121) practising in Canadian tertiary care neonatal units between June 2004 and April 2005, and asked whether they would support a parental request not to initiate resuscitation for newborns of 23 to 26 weeks ’ gestation. Bivariate analyses were performed to identify sociodemographic or cultural factors that might affect resuscitation decisions. Results: Most Canadian neonatologists would support a parental request not to initiate resuscitation of an infant at 23 and 24 weeks ’ gestation (98 % and 80%, respectively). However, we observed heterogeneity across the country in attitudes primarily at 25 weeks, but also at 24 weeks ’ gestation. At 24 weeks ’ gestation, decisions also appear to be significantly related to personal experience with a disabled close friend or relative. For newborns of 25 weeks ’ gestation, neonatologists are divided: a majority (76%) would strongly advocate resuscitation and/or resuscitate a “viable ” fetus against parental wishes, and a minority (24%) would agree not to initiate treatment. At 26 weeks ’ gestation, more than 97 % would not support a request not to initiate resuscitation. Conclusion: Attitudes of Canadian neonatologists towards resuscitation of newborns at the threshold of viability primarily differ at 25 weeks and to a lesser extent at 24 weeks of gestation. Our findings highlight important nuances in relation to existing national guidelines. Résumé Objectif: La portée des interventions de soins intensifs offertes aux nouveau-nés extrêmement prématurés suscite de grands débats. Dans le cadre de ce rapport, nous décrivons les attitudes des néonatologistes canadiens envers les décisions liées à la réanimation des nouveau-nés au seuil de la viabilité en salle d’accouchement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research→French-language works237,207→