Longitudinal change in the treatment of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy in Ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health problems associated with untreated nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) include maternal weight loss, dehydration, and electrolyte and acid-base disturbances. Negative social consequences include the deterioration of domestic, social and occupational function of the affected women. In 1994 it was documented that most physicians in Ontario tended not to treat women with NVP pharmacologically. PURPOSE: To investigate the longitudinal change in therapeutic practice of physicians, with respect to the treatment of NVP. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to a randomly selected sample of physicians that included community-based family physicians, hospital-based family physicians, obstetricians and physicians who called the Motherisk Program for information. The participants were questioned about their choices in the pharmacological treatment of NVP. The data from the survey were compared with those from a previously published survey conducted in 1994. RESULTS: In 1999, 90.2% of physicians surveyed reported to have used pharmacological means to treat NVP. In 1999, 95% of the physicians surveyed reported to have prescribed doxylamine succinate-pyridoxine hydrochloric acid (Diclectin), and 11% prescribed dimenhydrinate (Gravol) to treat NVP. These results are significantly different from those found in 1994 (90% prescribed Gravol as the first choice). CONCLUSIONS: In 1999, temporally related to various educational efforts, physicians offered treatment for NVP more readily, including the drug recommended by the regulatory agency. These changes may explain in part the recently documented decrease in hospitalizations due to NVP in Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".