A scoping review of geographic information systems in maternal health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Geographic information systems (GIS) are increasingly recognized tools in maternal health. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of GIS in maternal health and to identify knowledge gaps and opportunities. SEARCH STRATEGY: Keywords broadly related to maternal health and GIS were used to search for academic articles and gray literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: Reviewed articles focused on maternal health, with GIS used as part of the methods. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Peer reviewed articles (n=40) and gray literature sources (n=30) were reviewed. MAIN RESULTS: Two main themes emerged: modeling access to maternal services and identifying risks associated with maternal outcomes. Knowledge gaps included a need to rethink spatial access to maternal care in low- and middle-income settings, and a need for more explicit use of GIS to account for the geographical variation in the effect of risk factors on adverse maternal outcomes. Limited evidence existed to suggest that use of GIS had influenced maternal health policy. Instead, application of GIS to maternal health was largely influenced by policy priorities in global maternal health. CONCLUSIONS: Investigation of the role of GIS in contributing to future policy directions is warranted, particularly for elucidating determinants of global maternal health.
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 | 0.015 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".