MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043883691 · doi:10.1258/om.2011.011080

Acute myocardial infarction in the obstetric patient

2012· review· en· W2043883691 on OpenAlex
Tabassum Firoz, Laura A. Magee

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetric Medicine · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyMyocardial infarctionContext (archaeology)Intensive care medicineBreastfeedingRisk stratificationDiseasePostpartum periodObstetricsPediatricsCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute myocardial infraction (AMI) in the obstetric patient is a rare event, although the incidence is rising due to advancing maternal age and pre-existing cardiac risk factors and medical co-morbidities. While atherosclerotic disease is the leading cause of AMI, coronary artery dissection is an important consideration in pregnancy and in the postpartum period. The physiological changes of pregnancy as well as pregnancy-specific risk factors can predispose the obstetric patient to AMI. Diagnosis of AMI can be challenging as symptoms may be atypical. Furthermore, diagnostic tests must be interpreted in the context of pregnancy. While the overall management of the obstetric patient with AMI is similar to that outside of pregnancy, drug therapy requires modification as some medications may be contraindicated in pregnancy and breastfeeding. There is limited information about prognosis and risk stratification but it is anticipated that future studies will address this issue.

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.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.278 · 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