Integrating a clinical model of smoking cessation into antenatal care
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smoking rates during pregnancy in Rotherham are high, and between 2007 and 2010 were on an upward trend. Previous local initiatives to address the problem, such as introducing an opt-out pathway and incentive schemes, were not proving effective. In early 2010 NHS Rotherham undertook a major service redesign of the smoking in pregnancy pathway, embedding intensive specialist smoking cessation advice into routine antenatal care. The proportion of pregnant women smokers who set a quit date increased from 33.7% in 2008/09 to 43.9% in 2010/11 (P < 0.05). The percentage of women still smoking at the time of delivery had initially been on an upward trend since 2006/07, reaching a high of 27.3% during 2009/10. This trend has now reversed, falling to 22.4% during 2010/11 and to 19.3% in the first quarter of 2011/12. Embedding stop smoking advice in routine antenatal care has enabled more women to receive a single intensive stop smoking intervention. It has succeeded in engaging women who attend their antenatal scans but have little other interaction with health services. The pathway is achieving better outcomes without requiring additional resources.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it