MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1597704956 · doi:10.1186/s12884-015-0539-7

QF2011: a protocol to study the effects of the Queensland flood on pregnant women, their pregnancies, and their children's early development

2015· article· en· W1597704956 on OpenAlexafffund
Suzanne King, Sue Kildea, Marie‐Paule Austin, Alain Brunet, Vanessa E. Cobham, Paul A. Dawson, Mark Harris, Elizabeth Hurrion, David P. Laplante, Brett McDermott, David McIntyre, Michael W. O’Hara, Norbert Schmitz, Helen Stapleton, Sally Tracy, Cathy Vaillancourt, Kelsey N. Dancause, Sue Kruske, Nicole Reilly, Laura Shoo, Gabrielle Simcock, A.M. Turcotte-Tremblay, Erin Yong Ping

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à MontréalInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAustralian Catholic University
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyObstetricsPsychosocialStressorReproductive medicineRandomized controlled trialUmbilical cordPrenatal careOffspringBiopsychosocial modelPopulationPsychiatryInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies suggest that maternal exposure to a severe stressor during pregnancy increases the fetus' risk for a variety of disorders in adulthood. Animal studies testing the fetal programming hypothesis find that maternal glucocorticoids pass through the placenta and alter fetal brain development, particularly the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. However, there are no prospective studies of pregnant women exposed to a sudden-onset independent stressor that elucidate the biopsychosocial mechanisms responsible for the wide variety of consequences of prenatal stress seen in human offspring. The aim of the QF2011 Queensland Flood Study is to fill this gap, and to test the buffering effects of Midwifery Group Practice, a form of continuity of maternity care. METHODS/DESIGN: In January 2011 Queensland, Australia had its worst flooding in 30 years. Simultaneously, researchers in Brisbane were collecting psychosocial data on pregnant women for a randomized control trial (the M@NGO Trial) comparing Midwifery Group Practice to standard care. We invited these and other pregnant women to participate in a prospective, longitudinal study of the effects of prenatal maternal stress from the floods on maternal, perinatal and early childhood outcomes. Data collection included assessment of objective hardship and subjective distress from the floods at recruitment and again 12 months post-flood. Biological samples included maternal bloods at 36 weeks pregnancy, umbilical cord, cord blood, and placental tissues at birth. Questionnaires assessing maternal and child outcomes were sent to women at 6 weeks and 6 months postpartum. The protocol includes assessments at 16 months, 2½ and 4 years. Outcomes include maternal psychopathology, and the child's cognitive, behavioral, motor and physical development. Additional biological samples include maternal and child DNA, as well as child testosterone, diurnal and reactive cortisol. DISCUSSION: This prenatal stress study is the first of its kind, and will fill important gaps in the literature. Analyses will determine the extent to which flood exposure influences the maternal biological stress response which may then affect the maternal-placental-fetal axis at the biological, biochemical, and molecular levels, altering fetal development and influencing outcomes in the offspring. The role of Midwifery Group Practice in moderating effects of maternal stress will be tested.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1250.024

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations71
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Pregnancy and ChildbirthSame topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFrench-language works237,207