MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1886413744 · doi:10.1080/17441692.2015.1034155

Global health indicators and maternal health futures: The case of Intrauterine Growth Restriction

2015· article· en· W1886413744 on OpenAlexaff
Susan L. Erikson

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Public Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersDirectorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic SciencesWenner-Gren Foundation
KeywordsIntrauterine growth restrictionFutures contractMedicineEconomic growthBusinessEconomicsPregnancyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public health indicators generally operate in the world as credible, apolitical and authoritative. But indicators are less stable than they appear. Clinical critiques of Intrauterine Growth Restriction (IUGR) criteria have been forthcoming for decades. This article, though, takes up the measuring and calculation gradients of IUGR in the ultrasound machine itself, including the software algorithms that identify IUGR. One hospital where research was conducted incorrectly predicted pathological birth outcomes 14 of 14 times. We are at a historical moment when the global use of prenatal diagnostic ultrasound for the express purpose of assessing IUGR is set to escalate. Medical imaging device corporations like Siemens, Toshiba, General Electric and Phillips are quite literally banking on it, and new forms of ultrasound technology and diagnostic software are increasingly available on smartphones, tablets and laptops. Clinical guidelines for IUGR--assumed to be authoritative and evidence-based--are evolving right along with the installation throughout the world of the technology capable of diagnosing it. Maternal malnutrition remains the single strongest predictive factor for IUGR, regardless of the technological investments currently amassing to identify the indicator, which is cause for a reassessment of priority spending and investment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Public HealthSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207