Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the earliest days of modern neonatology, there has been concern with regard to the outcomes of high-risk survivors after they go home from the hospital. This concern has increased with the recent improvements in survival of infants of extremely short gestation who would previously have died. These issues stimulated the development of follow-up programs by neonatologists, some of them in Canada (1), who could be said to have founded the field of outcomes research. Despite the huge obstacles involved in consistently following infants through childhood, adolescence and, now, adulthood, we have had great success. The follow-up programs have produced important information based on large samples with low attrition. As a result, some programs have shown the generally positive futures of our patients, and the resilience and adaptability of the human organism (2). We have been able to describe the extent and severity of the problems that some of the infants face in the future (3), and also identify the adverse effects of some specific interventions that only became apparent in the long term (4). Neonatal follow-up programs also serve an important clinical purpose – to identify problems early, refer patients for necessary remediation and assist with the coordination of their sometimes complex care. This function is essential, and its importance has led many jurisdictions to provide funding for follow-up programs, which are recognized as an important way of improving the medical care of babies. The current issue of Paediatrics & Child Health includes a series of articles concerning neonatal follow-up, many of them focussing on the situation in Canada. Our country, with its universal health care system, has proved itself capable of ensuring that all of its neonates have the best available care, regardless of parental resources. This system has supported neonatal follow-up programs of extremely high quality, of which we can all be proud, and with outcomes that are as good as anywhere else in the world. What about the future? Stable, secured funding will allow these essential services to focus on providing excellent care and high-quality information. An extension of follow-up programs to other categories of infants is clearly important. The improved survival of infants with congenital anomalies and complex neonatal care unrelated to prematurity requires that they also benefit from the expertise of these programs. There are as many survivors of neonatal intensive care with long-term sequelae as a result of perinatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy at term as there are from prematurity (5); these infants require coordinated care, and the development of effective therapies for them (6) will require ongoing outcomes research. There is also a need for further refining what should be measured and when – both as a means of identifying the child who may benefit from specific intervention and as a way of predicting the likely outcome. Collating results from across the country to develop truly regional and national statistics will provide more essential information on the effects of neonatal diseases and the best ways to improve outcomes. Improving long-term outcomes is now recognized as the most important primary objective of neonatal clinical trials, with the quality of life of the survivors of intensive care being the critical demonstration of the usefulness of an intervention or a change in care. Interventions after the neonatal period to enhance the outcomes of at-risk infants by improving care during development have been less well investigated (7,8) but must, in the future, be thoroughly researched so that we can provide optimal outcomes for all of our patients.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".