MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509960092 · doi:10.1089/jwh.2016.5854

Ten Challenges in Contraception

2016· review· en· W2509960092 on OpenAlexaff
Audrey Binette, Kerry Howatt, Ashley Waddington, Robert L. Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Women s Health · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersAllerganU.S. Food and Drug Administration
KeywordsMedicineUnintended pregnancyFamily planningPregnancyFamily medicineDiseaseGynecologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the introduction of promising products into the contraceptive market, the rate of unintended pregnancies remains high. Women with underlying medical conditions should have access to safe and effective contraceptive methods for various reasons, including the potential deleterious effect of the disease on the pregnancy or the effect of the pregnancy on the disease process. Healthcare providers are often confronted with cases in which contraception counseling is problematic due to controversial evidence and persistent myths. This review will examine a number of medical conditions that often create contraception counseling challenges. It should in no way be considered as an extensive review of all contraceptive options for a given medical condition. The following topics will be explored: depression, immunosuppression, inflammatory bowel diseases, past bariatric surgery, liver diseases, family history of breast cancer, migraines, polycystic ovarian syndrome, perimenopausal state, and sickle cell disease. We advocate for improved information and accessibility to contraception as a means of decreasing the rate of unintended pregnancies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Women s HealthSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207