Variation in Outcome Reporting in Cardiac Arrhythmias and Aortopathies in Pregnancy [17K]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Variation in outcome reporting undermines the usefulness of research as comparisons cannot be drawn when definitions are not standardized. This study aimed to review outcomes reported in studies on pregnant women with cardiac arrhythmias and aortopathies, with a view to developing a core outcome set for future studies in this area. METHODS: A search strategy was designed for MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central databases from 1980 to 2015 to identify studies in pregnant women with arrhythmias and aortopathies. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts and discrepancies were reviewed by a third reviewer for the final decision on inclusion. RESULTS: After removing duplicates, 3118 titles and abstracts were reviewed and 485 articles involving pregnant women with congenital or acquired cardiac disease were identified. Of these, there were 12 studies on aortopathies and ten on arrhythmias. Overall, 77 outcomes were listed in the arrhythmia group, the most common being: cardiac event (7), syncope (4) and spontaneous abortion (3); 83 outcomes were used in studies on aortopathies, preterm delivery (8), increase in aortic root diameter (6), and abortion (6) being the three most common. The definition of outcomes differed significantly between studies. CONCLUSION: A large number of inconsistently reported outcomes were identified in studies involving pregnant women with arrhythmias and aortopathies. A core outcome set for cardiac disease in pregnancy, in particularly arrhythmias and aortopathies is in the process of being developed for international use in clinical and research settings.
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 | 0.262 | 0.560 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".