MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093479909 · doi:10.3389/fgwh.2020.572158

COVID-19 and Women's Health: A Low- and Middle-Income Country Perspective

2020· review· en· W3093479909 on OpenAlexafffund
Shahirose Premji, Kiran Shaikh, Sharifa Lalani, Ilona S. Yim, Sarah R. Moore, Naureen Akber Ali, Saher Aijaz, Nicole Letourneau

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Global Women s Health · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British ColumbiaYork University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPandemicContext (archaeology)Mental healthDeveloping countryDevelopment economicsGlobal healthDiseaseOutbreakEconomic growthAffect (linguistics)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)SocioeconomicsDemographic economicsHealth careEnvironmental healthGeographyPsychologyMedicineEconomicsInfectious disease (medical specialty)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19), a contagious disease, is a global pandemic affecting the lives and health of individuals across borders, genders and races. Much of what is known about the effects of natural disasters and disease outbreaks on women's health in particular, is based on studies conducted in high-income countries. The evolving evidence suggests that COVID-19 has a profound negative impact on the perinatal mental health of women. It is also clear that global pandemics such as COVID-19 disproportionately affect the less affluent, including individuals living in low- and middle-income countries. The purpose of this review is to summarize and critically discuss extant knowledge on COVID-19 as it relates to the perinatal health of women in low and middle-income countries, using Pakistan as a case example. We specifically highlight the effects on perinatal mental health, preterm birth, and timing of the COVID-19 exposure. Our review suggests that it is essential to consider the effects of COVID-19 within this cultural context and that findings from high-income countries do not necessarily translate to the situation in low and middle-income countries.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.334 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Global Women s HealthSame topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFrench-language works237,207