MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093679016 · doi:10.1136/ebm.6.4.107

Review: antiplatelet drugs reduce pre-eclampsia, preterm birth, and stillbirth or neonatal death

2001· article· en· W2093679016 on OpenAlexaff
ME Hannah

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEclampsiaMedicineAspirinPlaceboObstetricsPregnancyInternal medicineGynecologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(2001) BMJ 322, 329. Duley L, Henderson-Smart D, Knight M, et al. . Antiplatelet drugs for prevention of pre-eclampsia and its consequences: systematic review. . Feb 10; . : . –33. . [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] QUESTION: In pregnant women at risk for pre-eclampsia, how effective are antiplatelet drugs in preventing pre-eclampsia and its complications? Studies were identified by searching the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group register of trials, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and EMBASE/Excerpta Medica (1994–9) and by handsearching conference abstracts. Studies were selected if they were randomised controlled trials comparing antiplatelet drugs with placebo or no antiplatelet drug in women at risk for developing pre-eclampsia. Exclusion criteria were having no clinical data available, inadequate randomisation, <80% follow up of patients, or having participants at very low risk for pre-eclampsia. Data were extracted on study validity (allocation concealment), patient risk for developing pre-eclampsia (high or moderate), length of gestation (< or ≥20 wks), dose of aspirin (≤75 mg or >75 … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft.stitle%253DBMJ%26rft.issn%253D0007-1447%26rft.aulast%253DDuley%26rft.auinit1%253DL.%26rft.volume%253D322%26rft.issue%253D7282%26rft.spage%253D329%26rft.epage%253D333%26rft.atitle%253DAntiplatelet%2Bdrugs%2Bfor%2Bprevention%2Bof%2Bpre-eclampsia%2Band%2Bits%2Bconsequences%253A%2Bsystematic%2Breview%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fbmj.322.7282.329%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11159655%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=322/7282/329&atom=%2Febmed%2F6%2F4%2F107.atom

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207