Models of antenatal care and obstetric outcomes in Sydney South West
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess obstetric outcomes of different models of antenatal care. METHODS: The study was historical cohort analysis of population birth data of 67,675 singleton births delivered in all public hospitals in Sydney South-west. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared for different models of antenatal care received. The care was provided within the hospitals in doctor's clinic, midwives' clinic, birth centre, or by a team of midwives in the caseload midwifery. In the non-hospital settings, the care was provided by private obstetricians or by the general practitioner (GP) as part of the GP Shared Care program. The data for those women who received no antenatal care were also analysed. RESULTS: This study provided information that the obstetric outcomes were very similar regardless of whether a woman received her antenatal care in the midwives' clinic, the birth centre, under the GP Shared Care program or in the doctor's clinic in Sydney South-west hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence for the view that different models of maternity care can be provided with good 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 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".