Trends in Obstetric Intervention and Pregnancy Outcomes of Canadian Women With Diabetes in Pregnancy From 2004 to 2015
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
CONTEXT: Multiple consensus statements decree that women with diabetes mellitus should have comparable birth outcomes to women without diabetes mellitus; however, there is a scarcity of contemporary population-based studies on this issue. OBJECTIVE: To examine temporal trends in obstetric interventions and perinatal outcomes in a population-based cohort of women with type 1, type 2, or gestational diabetes mellitus compared with a control population. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: National hospitalization data (Canada except Quebec) from 2004 to 2015. PATIENTS: Pregnant women with type 1 (n = 7362), type 2 (n = 11,028), and gestational diabetes mellitus (n = 149,780) and women without diabetes mellitus (n = 2,688,231). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of obstetric intervention, maternal morbidity, and neonatal morbidity/mortality. RESULTS: < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary obstetric population, women with diabetes mellitus remain at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared with women without diabetes mellitus.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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