Modifications of maternal caffeine intake for improving pregnancy outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: The objective of this review is to assess the effects of either avoidance of caffeine or caffeine supplementation used by mother on pregnancy outcome. Specific objectives (1) To locate and describe primary outcomes using studies evaluating the effect of caffeine avoidance and caffeine supplements on pregnancy outcome including birthweight, low birthweight, very low birthweight, small‐for‐gestational age, first trimester fetal loss, prenatal mortality (postnatal death, stillbirth). (2) To locate and describe secondary outcomes using studies evaluating the effect of caffeine avoidance and caffeine supplements on neonatal outcomes (neonatal withdrawal syndrome, respiratory effects, cardiovascular effects, central nervous system effects, sudden infant death syndrome) and maternal outcome (headache, nausea, psychological outcomes, e.g. depression, anxiety, sleepiness, lethargy). (3) To summarize the effect of caffeine avoidance and caffeine supplements on pregnancy outcome depending on the type of caffeine used versus each other or versus none, and amount of caffeine used (either classified as low, medium or high concentration of caffeine or mean intake of caffeine) taken by pregnant mother versus each other and versus none. (4) To identify gaps and indicate future research, policy and program needs.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".