Clinical Risk Factors for Preeclampsia Determined in Early Pregnancy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Large Cohort Studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
( BMJ. 2016;353:i1753) Earlier studies have reported the effectiveness of aspirin in preventing preeclampsia in women considered to be at moderate to high risk of developing this disorder. This current study was a meta-analysis of cohort studies examining risk factors for preeclampsia with the goal of estimating early in pregnancy (≤16 wk gestation) a woman’s risk of developing preeclampsia based on the presence of absence of various risk factors. Three practical estimates were generated: the absolute risk of developing preeclampsia in the presence or absence of a given risk factor; the relative risk in the presence or absence of a given risk factor, and the population attributable fraction (PAF) for preeclampsia in relation to each risk factor. On the basis of their analysis, the authors aimed to provide a list of risk factors that could be used to identify those women at high risk for developing preeclampsia.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it