MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2002574557 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v1n1p60

A Method on Assessing Complication-Base Risk Factors for Neonatal Morbidity: Application for Pattani Hospital Delivery

2009· article· en· W2002574557 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Orasa Rachatapantanakorn, Phattrawan Tongkumchum, Nittaya McNeil

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGraduate School, Prince of Songkla UniversityPrince of Songkla University
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionApgar scoreSingletonObstetricsComplicationPregnancyBirth weightEclampsiaLow birth weightObstetric historyPediatricsGestationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated risk factors for neonatal morbidity based on a database of 19,268 singleton maternal deliveries atPattani Hospital during the period from 1 October 1996 to 30 September 2005 inclusive. This database includesdemographics of the mother and delivery outcomes including birth weight, one- and five-minute Apgar scores, and atmost one complication selected from a list of 62 by the deliverer. In our study the neonatal risk associated with acomplication was defined by averaging the results given by 11 obstetricians who independently scored eachcomplication on a scale from 0 to 9 (highest risk to baby). Using logistic regression to adjust for demographic andpregnancy-history factors, we found risk that Muslim women have higher neonatal morbidity risks, particularly thoseassociated with severe pregnancy-induced hypertension, eclampsia and thick mecomium stain.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.365 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicGlobal Maternal and Child Health→French-language works237,207→