MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009862623 · doi:10.1055/s-2000-9269

MATERNAL COMPLICATIONS WITH PLACENTA PREVIA

2000· article· en· W2009862623 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joan Crane, Michiel C. Van den Hof, Linda J. Dodds, B. Anthony Armson, Robert Liston

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Perinatology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlacenta previaObstetricsHysterectomyPlacenta accretaPlacenta DiseasesRelative riskRetrospective cohort studyPregnancyGynecologyBlood transfusionPopulationPlacentaSurgeryFetusConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to describe the maternal complications of placenta previa. A population-based retrospective cohort study including all women delivered in the province of Nova Scotia, Canada from 1988 to 1995 was performed. Patient information was obtained from the Nova Scotia Atlee Perinatal Database and maternal complications were described for all women undergoing cesarean delivery. Prognostic factors for the risk of hysterectomy in woman with placenta previa were analyzed by multiple logistic regression. During the 8-year period, 308 cases of placenta previa were identified in 93,996 deliveries (0.33%). Maternal complications included hysterectomy [relative risk (RR) = 33.26], antepartum bleeding (RR = 9.81), intrapartum (RR = 2.48), and postpartum (RR = 1.86) hemorrhages, as well as blood transfusion (RR = 10.05), septicemia (RR = 5.55), and thrombophlebitis (RR = 4.85). Risk factors for need of hysterectomy in women with placenta previa include the presence of placenta accreta and previous cesarean delivery.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations210
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PerinatologySame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207