Variation in outcome reporting in studies on obesity in pregnancy—A systematic review
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
Although considerable research is being conducted with a view to improve outcomes for pregnant women with obesity and their babies, much of this research is compromised by the quality of outcome reporting. Our aim is to determine how outcomes have been reported and measured in obesity in pregnancy studies, as a first step towards developing a core outcome set to standardize outcome reporting in future trials. We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials and systematic reviews on obesity in pregnancy in accordance with the Preferred Reporting in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. We searched Medline, Embase, controlled register of trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, www.clinicaltrials.gov and Google Scholar, for relevant studies and extracted study characteristics, outcome reporting and measurement. Reporting quality was assessed using previously published criteria. Outcomes were grouped using a published taxonomy and variations in outcome reporting and measurement were descriptively presented. Seventy included studies yielded a total of 135 outcomes. Foetal/neonatal outcomes were not reported in 53.3% of studies where an intervention could have implications to both, mother and baby. Reported outcomes were mostly physiological/clinical (74.8%), with very limited representation of outcomes related to mortality/survival (5.2%), life impact (7.4%), adverse events (5.9%) and resource utilization (6.7%).
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 | 0.074 | 0.217 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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