MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of prenatal care at basic health units in the city of Sao Paulo

2008· article· en· W2125645037 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Regina Célia de Menezes Succi, Elisabeth Níglio de Figueiredo, Letícia de Carvalho Zanatta, Marina Biffani Peixe, Marina Bertelli Rossi, Lucila Amaral Carneiro Vianna

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrenatal careMedicineExcellenceQuarter (Canadian coin)Health carePregnancyFamily medicineChildbirthSyphilisPublic healthMedical careEnvironmental healthNursingHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PopulationGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of prenatal care offered in 12 Basic Health Units (BHU) in the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil, through a review of medical and nurse charts, before and after the municipalization of the public health system. The indicator used considered excellence in care as: starting prenatal care in the first quarter of pregnancy; at least six medical visits; at least two results of blood screening for syphilis and one for HIV; returning to BHU up to 42 days after delivery. This indicator was not present in any care delivered in 2000, and only 7.7% of the care delivered in 2004 obtained it (1.1% to 30% of the care per unit assessed). Although there was an evident improvement in care during the period, the low proportion of excellent prenatal care shows an urgent need to improve this care in the BHU of São Paulo city.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations21
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Latino-Americana de EnfermagemSame topicMaternal and Neonatal HealthcareFrench-language works237,207