Implementation, Quality Control and Selected Pregnancy Outcomes of the Murmansk County Birth Registry in Russia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the essential features of the newly established Murmansk County Birth Registry (MCBR); make some preliminary comparisons of selected variables related to pregnancy and delivery in northern counties of the Nordic countries and in cities and towns of Murmansk County [Murmanskaja Oblast (MO)] and explore some research possibilities. STUDY DESIGN: A registry-based cohort study. METHODS: The MCBR was established in 2005 and registration began on 1 January 2006. A registry form draws upon both hospital files and information from the mother. There are 54 major fields consisting primarily of tick-off boxes and International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) codes. A quality control exercise was conducted in both 2006 and 2007. RESULTS: During 2006, 8,468 births were registered in the MO (coverage = 98.9%). The proportion of errors was below 1% in both years. Limiting the descriptive statistics to 2006, compared to counties of the Nordic counties in the Barents Region, the delivering women in the MO were younger and had fewer and lighter (mean of 200 g) babies. The gestational age was somewhat shorter in the MO than in the Nordic counties and fewer babies had a birthweight above 4,500 g. The perinatal mortality corresponding to a gestational age (GA) of either 22 or 28 completed weeks was higher (p < 0.02) in the MO than the Nordic counties in this study. In the MO, the birth rate does not balance the reported increase in death rate. CONCLUSIONS: Our study concludes that a medical birth registry of satisfactory quality has been established for the world's largest arctic population.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".