Instituting Surveillance Guidelines and Adverse Outcomes in Preeclampsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of combined adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in women with preeclampsia before and after introducing standardized assessment and surveillance. METHODS: This study was a preintervention (retrospective) compared with a postintervention (prospective) cohort comparison in a single-tertiary, perinatal unit that included women admitted to hospital with preeclampsia. We interrogated an existing retrospective 24-month database and then introduced the guidelines, assessing the incidence of the combined adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes for 41 months (September 2003 through February 2007). Tests of organ (dys)function were performed at least as often as on the day of admission, admission day +1, every Monday and Thursday, day of delivery, and delivery day +1. All data were checked for errors. The combined maternal outcome was maternal death or one or more of hepatic failure, hematoma, or rupture, Glasgow coma score of less than 13, stroke, at least two seizures, cortical blindness, need for positive inotrope support, myocardial infarction, infusion of any third antihypertensive, renal dialysis, renal transplantation, at least 50% FIO(2) for greater than 1 hour, intubation, or transfusion of at least 10 units of blood products. The combined perinatal outcome was perinatal or infant mortality, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis, grade III/IV intraventricular hemorrhage, cystic periventricular leukomalacia, or stage 3-5 retinopathy of prematurity. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-five and 405 women were in the preintervention and postintervention cohorts, respectively. The incidence of adverse maternal outcome fell (5.1% to 0.7%; Fisher P<.001; odds ratio 0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.04-0.49). Perinatal outcomes did not change. CONCLUSION: Standardized surveillance of women with preeclampsia was associated with reduced maternal risk.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".