MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809005383 · doi:10.1186/s12978-018-0524-5

Improving pregnancy outcomes in low- and middle-income countries

2018· editorial· en· W2809005383 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Robert L. Goldenberg, Elizabeth M. McClure, Sarah Saleem

Bibliographic record

VenueReproductive Health · 2018
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsPsychological interventionPregnancyMedicineReproductive medicineLow and middle income countriesEnvironmental healthInfant mortalityNeonatal mortalityPublic healthDeveloping countryHealth careDemographyPopulationEconomic growthNursingEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews the very large discrepancies in pregnancy outcomes between high, low and middle-income countries and then presents the medical causes of maternal mortality, stillbirth and neonatal mortality in low-and middle-income countries. Next, we explore the medical interventions that were associated with the very rapid and very large declines in maternal, fetal and neonatal mortality rates in the last eight decades in high-income countries. The medical interventions likely to achieve similar declines in pregnancy-related mortality in low-income countries are considered. Finally, the quality of providers and the data to be collected necessary to achieve these reductions are discussed. It is emphasized that single interventions are unlikely to achieve important reductions in pregnancy-related mortality. Instead, improving the overall quality of pregnancy-related care across the health-care system will be necessary. The conditions that cause maternal mortality also cause stillbirths and neonatal deaths. Focusing on all three mortalities together is likely to have a larger impact than focusing on one of the mortalities alone.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0090.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations118
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproductive HealthSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207