MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125010332 · doi:10.1177/019394502237700

Where and to What Extent is Prevention of Low Birth Weight Possible?

2002· article· en· W2125010332 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christine Newburn‐Cook, Lawrence W. Svenson, Nestor Demianczuk, Nancy Bott, Joy Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Journal of Nursing Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health AuthorityRoyal Alexandra HospitalUniversity of ManitobaAlberta HealthUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsLow birth weightPregnancySmall for gestational ageBirth weightGestationGestational agePremature birthPediatricsFetal growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Law birth weight (LBW), due to shortened gestation and/or inadequate fetal growth. is the major determinant of infant mortality and morbidity. Despite improvements in infant mortality, them has been no reduction in LBW rates. The authors examined the relationship between 33 maternal characteristics and the increased risks of preterm (PT) delivery or small-for-gestational-age (SGA) births in 76,444 Alberta women 1994-1997. PT was associated with preexisting medical conditions, obstetrical history, and pregnancy complications. Modifiable factors such as advanced maternal age contributed only 11% to the overall PT risk. SGA births were associated with several modifiable factors, including low prepregnancy weight, maternal age, smoking, drinking, and drug dependency. These contributed to 29% and 31% of PTand term SGA births. Smoking remains an important target for intervention, having contributed to 8% of PT births and about 24% of SGA births. SGA appears to be more amenable to prevention than PT delivery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern Journal of Nursing ResearchSame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207