MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971736989 · doi:10.1002/pds.1575

Risk factors associated with preterm birth according to gestational age at birth

2008· article· en· W1971736989 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin D. Ofori, Magali Le Tiec, Anick Bérard

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestational agePharmacoepidemiologyObstetricsPremature birthPediatricsPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To identify and quantify risk factors associated with preterm birth, stratified by gestational age at birth. METHODS: Three case-control analyses were done. Controls were pregnancies of > or =37 weeks of gestational age at birth. Cases were defined as: <28, 28-32, 33- <37 weeks of gestational age at birth respectively in the three case-control analyses. Women were categorized according to whether they carried single or multiple infants. RESULTS: Obstetrical conditions (placenta previa, placental abruption), and maternal hypertension were significantly associated with preterm delivery in all case-control analyses (adjusted OR between 1.34-19.56, p < 0.05). Leading risk factors for preterm delivery in singleton pregnancies were placental abruption and placenta previa (adjusted ORs 4.85 and 4.13, p < 0.05). For multiple pregnancies they were polyhydramnios and maternal hypertension (adjusted ORs 4.39 and 2.45, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Obstetrical conditions during the pregnancy and maternal hypertension are important risk factors for preterm birth.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
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

Citations20
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacoepidemiology and Drug SafetySame topicMaternal and Neonatal HealthcareFrench-language works237,207