MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023328499 · doi:10.3109/10641955.2013.872253

External validation of a model for periconceptional prediction of recurrent early-onset preeclampsia

2014· article· en· W2023328499 on OpenAlexaff
Sander M. J. van Kuijk, Denise H. J. Delahaije, Carmen D. Dirksen, Hubertina Scheepers, M. Spaanderman, Wessel Ganzevoort, Johannes J. Duvekot, Martijn A. Oudijk, Maria G. van Pampus, Peter von Dadelszen, Louis L.H. Peeters, Luc Smits

Bibliographic record

VenueHypertension in Pregnancy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaChild and Family Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReceiver operating characteristicPreeclampsiaPregnancyObstetricsArea under the curveRisk modelPediatricsInternal medicineRisk analysis (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To validate a previously published prediction model for recurrent early-onset preeclampsia (PE). METHODS: We included 229 pregnant women with a history of early-onset PE and computed their risk using the prediction model, compared the predicted risk to their pregnancy outcomes and assessed performance of the model. RESULTS: Early-onset PE recurred in 6.6% of participants. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 59% (95% CI: 45-73). The model created groups that were only moderately different in terms of their risk. CONCLUSIONS: The model's discriminate ability was poor and predictive performance insufficient to classify women into relevant risk groups.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHypertension in PregnancySame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207