Are pregnancy outcomes associated with risk factor reporting in routinely collected perinatal data?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess reporting characteristics of commonly dichotomised pregnancy outcomes (e.g. preterm/term birth); and to investigate whether behaviours (e.g. smoking), medical conditions (e.g. diabetes) or interventions (e.g. induction) were reported differently by pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: Further analysis of a previous validation study was undertaken, in which 1680 perinatal records were compared with data extracted from medical records. Continuous and polytomous variables were dichotomised, and risk factor reporting was assessed within the dichotomised outcome groups. Agreement, kappa, sensitivity and positive predictive value calculations were undertaken. RESULTS: Gestational age, birthweight, Apgar scores, perineal trauma, regional analgesia and baby discharge status (live birth/stillbirth) were reported with high accuracy and reliability when dichotomised (kappa values 0.95-1.00, sensitivities 94.7-100.0%). Although not statistically significant, there were trends for hypertension, infant resuscitation and instrumental birth to be more accurately reported among births with adverse outcomes. In contrast, smoking ascertainment tended to be poorer among preterm births and when babies were <2500 g. CONCLUSION: Dichotomising variables collected as continuous or polytomous variables in birth data results in accurate and well ascertained data items. There is no evidence of systematic differential reporting of risk factors.
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 | 0.103 | 0.372 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".