MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094688472 · doi:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100274

Modern obstetrics: beyond early delivery for fetal or maternal compromise

2020· article· en· W3094688472 on OpenAlexafffund
K.S. Joseph, Sid John, Amélie Boutin, Natalie V. Scime, Kathleen H. Chaput, Giulia M. Muraca, Neda Razaz, Yasser Sabr, Sarka Lisonkova, Nandini Dendukuri

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsB.C. Women's Hospital & Health CentreMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och VälfärdMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsMedicineInterimObstetricsExpectant managementRandomized controlled trialGestationWarrantInterim analysisFetusPregnancyGynecologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management1 (ARRIVE) trial provoked a flurry of comment and related studies,2–9 but the bemusing results and less obvious implications of this seminal study warrant additional review. This state-of-the-art trial randomly allocated more than 6000 low-risk nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation and showed that adverse perinatal outcome rates were lower after labor induction (4.3%) than expectant management (5.4%). Although the P value for this difference was .049, the result was deemed to be not statistically significant because the significance threshold had been set at .046 (an a priori decision that accounted for 1 interim analysis).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFMSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207