Obstetrician-Gynecologistsʼ Knowledge and Training About Antenatal Corticosteroids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objective To characterize the clinical decisions, knowledge, opinions, and education of obstetricians and gynecologists about antenatal corticosteroids. Methods Questionnaires mailed to 1020 ACOG Fellows included items on demographics, knowledge, clinical practice patterns, and educational background regarding antenatal corticosteroids. Results The survey response rate was 47.8%. Almost all respondents (94%) reported administering antenatal corticosteroids, with reduction of respiratory distress syndrome (82%) as the primary reason for antenatal corticosteroid administration. Most (59.2%) were unaware of newly recognized associations between multiple administrations of corticosteroids and fetal growth restriction. In hypothetical clinical situations, responses by physicians who completed their residency training before 1970 indicated less likelihood to administer corticosteroids when administration is relatively indicated per National Institutes of Health (NIH) and ACOG guidelines than those trained later (P < .001). Only 8% of the entire sample rated their knowledge of antenatal corticosteroids as comprehensive; most (68%) rated it as adequate. Respondents rated residency training as a much better source of antenatal corticosteroid knowledge than medical school. Conclusion Most obstetrician-gynecologists reported using antenatal corticosteroids; however, in general, many were not aware of more recent information regarding potential risks. This survey suggests that a multipronged educational approach is warranted to update obstetrician-gynecologists about antenatal corticosteroids. Although antenatal corticosteroids are used widely by obstetrician-gynecologists, educational efforts are still needed to maximize their appropriate use and to update clinicians about potential side effects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".