MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2310084655 · doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.01.007

Is model of care associated with infant birth outcomes among vulnerable women? A scoping review of midwifery-led versus physician-led care

2016· review· en· W2310084655 on OpenAlexafffund
Daphne N. McRae, Nazeem Muhajarine, Kathrin Stoll, Maureen Mayhew, Saraswathi Vedam, Deborah Mpofu, Patricia A. Janssen

Bibliographic record

VenueSSM - Population Health · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Health AuthorityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan Health
FundersChild and Family Research InstituteUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsMedicineInfant mortalityObstetricsMaternity careNursingFamily medicineHealth careEnvironmental healthPopulationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

) and very low birth weight (OR=0.35, 95% CI:0.1, 0.9), for sub-groups within the larger study populations. This scoping review documented heterogeneity in study designs and analytical methods, inconsistent findings, moderate methodological quality, and lack of currency. There is a need for new studies to definitively establish if and how a midwifery-led model of care influences birth outcomes for women of low SEP.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations29
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSM - Population HealthSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207