Rhodes Index of Nausea and Vomiting???Form 2 in Pregnant Women
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite widespread application of Rhodes Index of Nausea and Vomiting-Form 2 (INV2) in practice and research, empirical analyses have not been consistently performed to verify the a priori factors that guided the subclass construction of the symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To examine the dimensional structure of Rhodes INV in a sample of pregnant women. METHOD: Data were collected from 152 pregnant women who were experiencing some degree of nausea and vomiting during early pregnancy and analyzed using structural equation modeling techniques. Five competing measurement structures were tested and compared. The structure (model) that provided the closest fit to the data was selected and relationships (factor loadings) between the constructs and indicators were established. RESULTS: The model fitting the data the closest was a three-factor structure measuring nausea, vomiting, and retching as three separate, but correlated dimensions. The factor loadings were high (0.73-0.96) and significant (p < .001). The model treating nausea and vomiting as a one-factor concept as well as the model including two factors named symptom occurrence and symptom distress did not fit the data. CONCLUSION: Rhodes INV2 is a valid measurement tool if subscales are formed to reflect the multidimensional structure of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it