Expectant Management of Severe Preeclampsia Remote from Term: A Structured Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes associated with expectant vs. interventionist care of severe preeclampsia in observational studies. DATA SOURCES: Medline (01/1980-07/2007), bibliographies of retrieved papers, personal files, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Expectant or interventionist care of preeclampsia at <34 wk. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, RESULTS: Data abstraction independently by two reviewers. Median [IQR] of clinical maternal/perinatal outcomes presented. RESULTS: 72 publications, primarily from tertiary care centres in Dutch and developed world sites. Expectant care of severe preeclampsia <34 wk (39 cohorts, 4,650 women), for which 40% of women are eligible, is associated with pregnancy prolongation of 7-14 d, and few serious maternal complications (median <5%), similar to interventionist care (2 studies, 42 women). Complication rates are higher with HELLP <34wk (12 cohorts, 438 women) and severe preeclampsia <28wk (6 cohorts, 305 women), similar to interventionist care (6 cohorts, 467 women and 2 cohorts, 70 women, respectively). Expectant care of HELLP <34 wk (12 cohorts, 438 women) is associated with fewer days gained (median 5), but more serious maternal morbidity (e.g., eclampsia, median 15%). More than half of women have at least temporary improvement of HELLP. In the developed world, expectant (vs. interventionist) care of severe preeclampsia or HELLP <34 wk is associated with reduced neonatal death and complications. Stillbirth is higher in Dutch and developing world sites where viability thresholds are higher. For preeclampsia <24wk (4 cohorts), perinatal mortality is >80%. No predictors of adverse maternal/perinatal outcomes were identified (13 studies). CONCLUSIONS: Future research should establish the best maternal/fetal monito regimen and indications for delivery with expectant care. A definitive RCT is needed.
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 | 0.016 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".