Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Compared to women with normotensive pregnancies, women with a history of pre-eclampsia have a roughly fourfold increased risk of developing chronic arterial hypertension and a twofold increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD). Lifestyle changes, such as increased physical activity, weight loss, smoking cessation and healthy diet, are effective for CVD prevention in the general population. However, no scoping review or systematic review of postpartum lifestyle interventions among women with pre-eclampsia have, to our best knowledge, been performed. The objective of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the available research literature on postpartum lifestyle interventions to reduce the risk of CVD among women with pre-eclampsia. Methods and analysis The protocol is based on the framework outlined by Arksey and O’Malley. Databases to be searched include: PubMed, Embase CINAHL and the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports. The search will be performed after the publication of this protocol (estimated to be 1 June 2020) and will be repeated 1 month prior to the submission for publication of the final review (estimated to be 1 January 2021). The review will consider studies that include women in the postpartum period (in particular, but not restricted to, the first 12 months after delivery), with a history of pre-eclampsia. Data will be extracted by two independent reviewers using a data extraction tool including specific details about the population, concept, context, study methods and key findings relevant to the review objective. Any disagreements between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion, or with a third reviewer. The extracted data will be presented in diagrammatic or tabular form that align with the objective of this scoping review. A narrative summary will accompany the tabulated and/or charted results and will describe how the results relate to the reviews objective and questions. Ethics and dissemination Since all data will be obtained from publicly available materials, the proposed scoping review does not require ethical approval. The results will be submitted for publication in an open-access peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.070 | 0.006 |
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".