MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3198385066

An audit of 70 maternal deaths.

2021· article· en· W3198385066 on OpenAlexaff
Birgit Bødker, Lone Hvidman, Tom Weber, Jette Led Sørensen‎

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAuditMEDLINEObstetricsFamily medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Although women rarely die during pregnancy and childbirth in Denmark, keeping track of the maternal mortality rate and causes of death is vital in identifying learning points for future management of critical illness among obstetric patients and in pinpointing risk factors. METHODS: We identified maternal deaths between 2002 and 2017 by linking four Danish national health registers, using death certificates and reports from hospitals. An audit group then categorised each case by cause of death before identifying any suboptimal care and learning points, which may serve as a foundation for national guidelines and educational strategies. RESULTS: Seventy women died during pregnancy or within six weeks of a pregnancy in the study period. The most frequent causes of death were cardiovascular disease (n = 14), hypertensive disorder (n = 10), suicide (n = 10) and thromboembolism (n = 7). Suboptimal care was identified in 30 of the 70 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality from some of the most important causes of death decreased during the study period. No deaths from preeclampsia or thrombosis, two of the leading causes of death, were identified after 2011. In 2015-2017, suicide was the main cause of maternal death, which indicates that a stronger focus on vulnerability in pregnancy and childbirth is essential. Among the 70 deaths, 34% were potentially avoidable, indicating that it is essential continuously to focus on how to reduce severe maternal morbidity and mortality. FUNDING: none TRIAL REGISTRATION. not relevant.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicMaternal and fetal healthcare→French-language works237,207→