MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1849921288 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003520

Vaginal chlorhexidine during labour to prevent neonatal group B streptococcal infection

2002· reference-entry· en· W1849921288 on OpenAlexaff
Brenda Stade, Vibhuti Shah, Arne Ohlsson

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2002
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and Maternal Infections
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChlorhexidineMedicineDisinfectantAdverse effectGroup BObstetricsDentistryGynecologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: The primary objective of this review is to determine the effectiveness of vaginal disinfection with chlorhexidine during labour for the prevention of early‐onset group B ß‐hemolytic streptococcus infection in preterm and term neonates. The secondary objectives are to: 1) describe any adverse effects or benefits to the mother when chlorhexidine is used as a vaginal disinfectant during labour, and 2) to describe any adverse effects to the neonate when vaginal chlorhexidine is used. A primary analysis of all included trials will be carried out for the primary and secondary objectives. Further subgroup analyses of these objectives will be conducted based on methods of chlorhexidine administration (vaginal washing versus application of chlorhexidine as a gel).

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.006
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicNeonatal and Maternal InfectionsFrench-language works237,207