MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995191668 · doi:10.1080/01443615.2019.1679737

Maternal risk factors for birth asphyxia in low-resource communities. A systematic review of the literature

2019· review· en· W2995191668 on OpenAlexaff
Somkene Igboanugo, Alice P. Chen, John G. Mielke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsphyxiaEclampsiaLiteracyMEDLINEPsychological interventionPregnancyHealth literacyObstetricsFamily medicinePediatricsHealth careNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Birth asphyxia (BA) affects millions of newborns annually, especially in low-resource communities. Given that much of the attention to this point has focussed upon secondary prevention, we sought to inform the development of primary prevention strategies for BA in resource-limited settings by identifying maternal risk factors. To this end, we systematically reviewed the MEDLINE, PsychInfo, and EMBASE databases, and identified 38 relevant studies. Upon analysis, we found 12 maternal variables associated with BA, and thematically arranged them into 3 categories: sociodemographic factors (age, literacy, gravidity, parity), health care factors (antenatal care, delivery location), and health status (hypertension, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, anaemia, antepartum haemorrhage, pyrexia). The factors with the greatest, and/or most consistent influence upon likelihood for BA were: young maternal age (<20 years), limited maternal literacy, insufficient antenatal care, non-hospital delivery, maternal hypertension, and anaemia. We hope our review will assist stakeholders guiding the development of BA-related policies and programmes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations35
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Obstetrics and GynaecologySame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207