MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2773998429 · doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4915-2

Outcomes of Zika virus infection during pregnancy: contributions to the debate on the efficiency of cohort studies

2017· article· en· W2773998429 on OpenAlexaff
Elisabeth Carmen Duarte, Leila Posenato García, Wildo Navegantes de Araújo, Maria P. Vélez

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortZika virusCohort studyPopulationBiostatisticsPregnancySample size determinationPublic healthDemographyEnvironmental healthPediatricsStatisticsImmunologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Zika infection during pregnancy (ZIKVP) is known to be associated with adverse outcomes. Studies on this matter involve both rare outcomes and rare exposures and methodological choices are not straightforward. Cohort studies will surely offer more robust evidences, but their efficiency must be enhanced. We aim to contribute to the debate on sample selection strategies in cohort studies to assess outcomes associated with ZKVP. A study can be statistically more efficient than another if its estimates are more accurate (precise and valid), even if the studies involve the same number of subjects. Sample size and specific design strategies can enhance or impair the statistical efficiency of a study, depending on how the subjects are distributed in subgroups pertinent to the analysis. In most ZIKVP cohort studies to date there is an a priori identification of the source population (pregnant women, regardless of their exposure status) which is then sampled or included in its entirety (census). Subsequently, the group of pregnant women is classified according to exposure (presence or absence of ZIKVP), respecting the exposed:unexposed ratio in the source population. We propose that the sample selection be done from the a priori identification of groups of pregnant women exposed and unexposed to ZIKVP. This method will allow for an oversampling (even 100%) of the pregnant women with ZKVP and a optimized sampling from the general population of pregnant women unexposed to ZIKVP, saving resources in the unexposed group and improving the expected number of incident cases (outcomes) overall. CONCLUSION: We hope that this proposal will broaden the methodological debate on the improvement of statistical power and protocol harmonization of cohort studies that aim to evaluate the association between Zika infection during pregnancy and outcomes for the offspring, as well as those with similar objectives.

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)0.624
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.796
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6240.796
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.025
Scholarly communication0.0110.014
Open science0.0100.010
Research integrity0.0110.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.331 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public Health→Same topicMosquito-borne diseases and control→French-language works237,207→