MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012256875 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v6n3p131

Relationship between Revised Graduated Index (R-GINDEX) of Prenatal Care Utilization & Preterm Labor and Low Birth Weight

2014· article· en· W2012256875 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tahereh Tayebi, Zeinab Hamzehgardeshi, Marjan Ahmad Shirvani, Marjaneh Dayhimi, Mahmonir Danesh

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePrenatal careLow birth weightObstetricsBirth weightPregnancyPreterm laborCohort studyIntensive carePediatricsFetusPopulationEnvironmental healthIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prenatal care refers to accurate and consistent performance of the principles important to maintain healthy pregnancy outcomes and also for mother and child health. One of the new indices to assess the adequacy of care is Revised Graduated Index of Prenatal Care Utilization (R-GINDEX).The study aims to assess the relationship between quantitative prenatal care factors and preterm labor and low birth weight using R-GINDEX. This historical cohort study has been conducted on 420 mothers during the first two years after delivery in 2010. The adequacy of care was calculated by R-GINDEX. Based on this index, participants have been divided into three care groups including inadequate, adequate and intensive care groups. A significant relationship has been found between R-GINDEX and preterm birth and low birth weight (P<0.05). Thus the probability of premature labor in inadequate care group (RR=3.93) and low birth weight (RR= 2.53) was higher than that of the adequate and intensive care group. The results showed that the quantity of prenatal care is effective in reducing preterm birth and low birth weight.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207