MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015241462 · doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2008.08.024

Cesarean delivery surveillance system at a maternity hospital in Kabul, Afghanistan

2008· article· en· W2015241462 on OpenAlexaff
Tharani Kandasamy, Mario Merialdi, Richard J. Guidotti, Ana Pilar Betrán, Jennifer Harris-Requejo, Farima Hakimi, Paul Fa Van Look, Faizullah Kakar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsCesarean deliveryPregnancyLow birth weightPerinatal mortalityFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To use an active facility-based maternal and newborn surveillance system to describe cesarean delivery practices and outcomes in a resource-poor setting. METHODS: Using data from operating room logbooks, 392 cesarean deliveries were evaluated between April 1 and June 30 2006 at a large public maternity hospital in Kabul, Afghanistan. RESULTS: The perinatal mortality rate was 89 per 1000 births: 57% antepartum and 37% intrapartum stillbirths. Fetuses with normal birth weight comprised 85% of intrapartum stillbirths. Obstructed labor, uterine rupture, and malpresentation accounted for more than 50% of perinatal deaths. The cesarean delivery rate was 10.2% and there were 2 maternal deaths. CONCLUSION: The high percentage of intrapartum stillbirths among normal birth weight fetuses suggests a need for improved labor monitoring and surgical obstetric practices. The use of a facility-based perinatal surveillance system is critical in guiding such quality assurance initiatives.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207