MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006314446 · doi:10.3109/14767058.2010.531319

Opinion & HypothesisCould early aspirin prophylaxis prevent against preterm birth?

2011· article· en· W2006314446 on OpenAlexaff
Emmanuel Bujold, Stéphanie Roberge, Sylvie Tapp, Yves Giguère

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAspirinPreeclampsiaMedicinePlacentationObstetricsIntrauterine growth restrictionGestationRelative riskPregnancyConfidence intervalFetusPlacentaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing body of evidence suggests that defective placentation may play a major role in the genesis of preterm birth, indicating that preeclampsia, intra-uterine growth restriction (IUGR), and spontaneous preterm birth can share a similar mechanism of disease. A recent meta-analysis of low-dose aspirin trials for the prevention of preeclampsia and IUGR in high-risk women demonstrated that, when started early in gestation, aspirin could prevent more than half of preeclampsia and IUGR cases but was also linked with a significant decrease of preterm births (relative risk 0.22, 95% confidence interval: 0.10-0.49). Unfortunately, most studies did not report specific data on the cause of preterm deliveries and, therefore, we could not estimate the proportion of this effect that could be related to spontaneous preterm births. Therefore, we hypothesize that low-dose aspirin could become an additional weapon in the prevention of preterm births and we suggest that further studies should be performed in this area of research.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0070.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.010

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal MedicineSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207