MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1921365226

Prevention of neonatal group B streptococcal infection: approaches of physicians in Winnipeg, Man.

2007· article· en· W1921365226 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gerald Konrad, Susan Hauch, Christy Pylypjuk

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and Maternal Infections
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineGroup BIncidence (geometry)Antibiotic prophylaxisPopulationPediatricsPregnancyObstetricsAntibioticsEnvironmental healthInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine how family physicians in Winnipeg, Man, approach prevention of neonatal group B streptococcal (GBS) infection, what influences their decisions, and whether their decisions differ from those of local obstetricians. DESIGN: Population-based survey. SETTING: Family physicians' and obstetricians' practices in Winnipeg. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-five physicians and residents with hospital labour floor privileges. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Individual approaches to prevention of neonatal GBS infection, factors influencing choice of approach, and perceptions of neonatal GBS disease and universal prenatal GBS screening. RESULTS: About 66% of family physicians and their residents followed the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada's (SOGC) guidelines for universal GBS screening and intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis of all GBS carriers. This was significantly fewer than the 87% of obstetricians who followed these guidelines (P = .026). Obstetricians were more likely than family physicians to cite the literature as influencing their approach to neonatal GBS prevention (P < .001). Family physicians were more likely to cite the influence of peers and colleagues (P = .04). The incidence of neonatal GBS and its associated mortality were overestimated by 61% and 55% of obstetricians, and 66% and 57% of family physicians, respectively. Despite concerns about the risks and costs of universal GBS screening and intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis, 92% of obstetricians and 79% of family physicians thought that the benefits of universal screening outweighed the concerns. About 24% of obstetricians and 30% of family physicians were theoretically willing to expose more than 10,000 women to intrapartum prophylactic antibiotics to prevent a single neonatal GBS-related death. CONCLUSION: Family physicians were less likely than obstetricians to follow current SOGC guidelines for prevention of neonatal GBS disease. This could reflect a different perspective on patient care. Family physicians want patients to be involved in screening decisions based on full disclosure of potential harm and benefit.

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)0.000
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 score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicNeonatal and Maternal InfectionsFrench-language works237,207