MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W274405894 · doi:10.26443/mjm.v11i2.600

Adverse Reproductive Outcomes Associated With Teenage Pregnancy

2020· article· en· W274405894 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Siddhartha Yadav, Dilip Choudhary, Naresh P. KC, Rajesh Kumar Mandal, Achyut Sharma, Siddharth Singh Chauhan, Pawan K. Agrawal

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsTeenage pregnancyCaesarean sectionEpisiotomyPregnancyApgar scoreLow birth weightBirth weightSmall for gestational ageGynecologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: It is debated whether teenage pregnancy is associated with an adverse reproductive outcome. This study assessed the reproductive outcomes in teenage pregnancy in Nepal, a developing setting. METHODS: A hospital based retrospective cohort study of 4,101 deliveries to compare the outcomes between teenage and non-teenage pregnancies. RESULTS: Pregnancy in teenagers was associated with significantly increased risk (P<0.05) of delivery of very and moderately preterm births and Low Birth Weight babies. There was no significant difference in risk of having small for gestational age babies, low APGAR score at birth at 1 min and 5 min, stillbirth, neonatal death, and post partum hemorrhage. However, the risk of having delivery by episiotomy, vacuum or forceps and Caesarean section was significantly lower (P<0.05) among teenage mothers. CONCLUSION: Teenage women were more likely to have preterm births and low birth weight babies. However, they were less likely to have delivery by episiotomy, forceps or vacuum and Caesarean sections. In other respects, there were no significant differences between teenage and non-teenage mothers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations59
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Journal of MedicineSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207