MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329697551 · doi:10.1136/ebmed-2012-100549

For women with term low-risk pregnancies, risk of perinatal mortality and intrapartum morbidity similar across planned places of birth

2012· letter· en· W2329697551 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia A. Janssen

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Health and Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsCohortPopulationPediatricsPregnancyCohort studyGestationInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on: Birthplace in England Collaborative Group.Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. BMJ2011;343:d7400.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] The obstetric community remains deeply divided regarding the safety of out of hospital birth. Recent population-based registry studies of home birth have reported no difference in perinatal mortality or neonatal mortality.1,–,4 In the absence of randomised controlled trials, evaluation of the safety of out of hospital birth continues to rely on cohort studies in which the planned place of birth is determined by self-selection among parturients and risk assessment by caregivers. The Birthplace in England Collaborative Group has reported outcomes of singleton term births, during 2008–2010, according to planned place of birth in the National Health Service in England. Outcomes are reported for … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fbmj.d7400%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F22117057%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=343/nov23_4/d7400&atom=%2Febmed%2F17%2F6%2Fe8.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: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0140.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.005

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.282 · 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.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Not applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Commentary

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicNeonatal Health and BiochemistryFrench-language works237,207