Comparison of prenatal care coverage in early adolescents, late adolescents, and adult pregnant women in the Peruvian Amazon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare prenatal care coverage between adolescent (early and late) and adult pregnant women in Iquitos, Peru. METHODS: A random sample of 4467 birth records was collected. Multivariate analyses were performed to compare prenatal care coverage in all adolescent (10-14 years, 15-19 years) and adult (>or=20 years) age groups and then for primiparous women only. RESULTS: The mean number of visits was 5.0 for adolescents aged 10-14 years, 6.1 for adolescents aged 15-19 years, and 6.2 for women aged 20 years or older. For primiparous women, the means were 5.1, 6.2, and 6.8, for the respective age groups. Both the proportion attending and the number of prenatal visits were significantly lower in primiparous adolescents aged 10-14 years than in primiparous women aged 20 years or older (aOR 0.25; 95% CI, 0.10-0.62 and aRR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94, respectively). CONCLUSION: All women attended prenatal care more frequently than the WHO's recommended 4 visits; however, early adolescents attended significantly less often than late adolescents or adult women. Further study of this inequality is warranted to adequately inform local health services.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".