MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809434547 · doi:10.1186/s12978-018-0525-4

Early pregnancy loss in Belagavi, Karnataka, India 2014–2017: a prospective population-based observational study in a low-resource setting

2018· article· en· W2809434547 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sangappa Dhaded, Manjunath S. Somannavar, Jane P. Jacob, Elizabeth M. McClure, Sunil S. Vernekar, Yogesh Kumar, Avinash Kavi, Umesh Y Ramadurg, Janet Moore, Dennis Wallace, Richard J. Derman, Robert L. Goldenberg, Shivaprasad S. Goudar

Bibliographic record

VenueReproductive Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsMiscarriageMedicinePregnancyObstetricsReproductive medicinePopulationGestationProspective cohort studyObservational studyCohort studyLive birthGynecologyEnvironmental healthSurgeryInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of early pregnancy loss through miscarriage and medically terminated pregnancy (MTP) is largely unknown due to lack of early registration of pregnancies in most regions, and especially in low- and middle-income countries. Understanding the rates of early pregnancy loss as well as the characteristics of pregnant women who experience miscarriage or MTP can assist in better planning of reproductive health needs of women. METHODS: A prospective, population-based study was conducted in Belagavi District, south India. Using an active surveillance system of women of childbearing age, all women were enrolled as soon as possible during pregnancy. We evaluated rates and risk factors of miscarriage and MTP between 6 and 20 weeks gestation as well as rates of stillbirth and neonatal death. A hypothetical cohort of 1000 women pregnant at 6 weeks was created to demonstrate the impact of miscarriage and MTP on pregnancy outcome. RESULTS: A total of 30,166 women enrolled from 2014 to 2017 were included in this analysis. The rate of miscarriage per 1000 ongoing pregnancies between 6 and 8 weeks was 115.3, between 8 and 12 weeks the miscarriage rate was 101.9 per 1000 ongoing pregnancies and between 12 and 20 weeks the miscarriage rate was 60.3 per 1000 ongoing pregnancies. For those periods, the MTP rate was 40.2, 45.4, and 48.3 per 1000 ongoing pregnancies respectively. The stillbirth rate was 26/1000 and the neonatal mortality rate was 24/1000. The majority of miscarriages (96.6%) were unattended and occurred at home. The majority of MTPs occurred in a hospital and with a physician in attendance (69.6%), while 20.7% of MTPs occurred outside a health facility. Women who experienced a miscarriage were older and had a higher level of education but were less likely to be anemic than those with an ongoing pregnancy at 20 weeks. Women with MTP were older, had a higher level of education, higher parity, and higher BMI, compared to those with an ongoing pregnancy, but these results were not consistent across gestational age periods. CONCLUSIONS: Of women with an ongoing pregnancy at 6 weeks, about 60% will have a living infant at 28 days of age. Two thirds of the losses will be spontaneous miscarriages and one third will be secondary to a MTP. High maternal age and education were the risk factors associated with miscarriage and MTP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov. ClinicalTrial.gov Trial Registration: NCT01073475 .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 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

Citations39
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproductive HealthSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207