MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Editor's Choice

2003· article· en· W4244592371 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zoe J. Penn

Bibliographic record

VenueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFetusCerebral blood flowBlood pressureVaccinationPeriventricular leukomalaciaPhysiologyPregnancyImmunologyInternal medicineGestational ageBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the introduction of penicillin in the 1940s, the near-eradication of malaria soon after and the extinction of smallpox by vaccination, the scourge of infection appeared nearly beaten. However, celebration was probably premature. Malaria reappeared in a more resistant form as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was phased out and failed to keep its initial promise. The rise of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and, more recently, the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) virus have reminded doctors of the importance of infection. This month, we publish several articles about the central role of infection in areas of obstetrics that continue to defy full scientific elucidation: fetal brain injury, pre-eclampsia and preterm labour. While the association between intrauterine infection and white matter injury in the fetus is clear, it is not known whether infection itself causes the damage or just potentiates other factors, such as hypoxia. Peebles et al. (pages 735–743) investigated the part played by antenatal cerebral ischaemia in the pathogenesis of periventricular leucomalacia and cerebral palsy associated with fetal infection. They chronically instrumented nine fetal sheep and measured changes in fetal heart rate, mean arterial pressure and carotid blood flow after administration of endotoxin as Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide. Three lambs died within 12 hours, but in the survivors, there was an increase in the fetal heart rate, decrease in mean arterial pressure and an increase in carotid blood flow. Histology revealed periventricular leucomalacia in three of the six brains studied. It appears that hypoperfusion is not the primary factor in brain injury after exposure to bacterial infection. The exquisite sensitivity of the antenatal brain to the products of bacterial infection themselves maybe more important. Von Dadelszen et al. from Vancouver (pages 725–730) are not the first to wonder if early onset pre-eclampsia may be a different condition from late onset disease. The latter might be an evolutionary adaptation, offering survival advantages to the fetus with minimally increased maternal risks, but the same can hardly be said for early onset disease. The development of pre-eclampsia predicts later cardiovascular morbidity and mortality through atherosclerosis, and the initiation of atherosclerosis may be, in part, due to chronic infection. These authors postulated a link between chronic infection with cytomegalovirus (CMV) and noted an increase in seroprevalence to Chl. pneumoniae in pregnancies complicated by pre-eclampsia. They studied stored sera from four groups of women: those with early onset pre-eclampsia, late onset pre-eclampsia, normotensive IUGR and matched controls. Anti-CMV and anti-Chl. pneumoniae antibodies were higher in the early onset pre-eclampsia group. Although the hypothesis remains tentative, pre-eclampsia may yet justify its old appellation of ‘toxaemia of pregnancy’! The case report from Waghorn and Robson (pages 780–781) reminds us that, even in the developed world, we are not immune from the effects of zoonoses. A vet developed pyrexia 10 days before the onset of preterm labour at 34 weeks of gestation. Delivery was effected with forceps because of maternal pyrexia and the neonate remained healthy. However, Pasturella multocida, a mouth and gastrointestinal tract commensal of domestic cats and dogs, was isolated from a high vaginal swab and blood cultures. The authors postulate a blood-bourne infection with a source of entry from the vet's hands. Childbirth is the sort of activity that attracts a multiplicity of visions from interest groups about the values to be placed on such things as mode of delivery, care in labour or place of birth. Readers may wonder why practising obstetricians should worry about economic evaluation of childbirth interventions. We are, after all, encouraged to place the woman at the centre of decision-making and allow her values to predominate, not the economics of healthcare provision. Nevertheless, the article from Tracy and Tracy (pages 717–724) adds important cost information. Taken in combination with the evidence base surrounding successful vaginal birth, it debunks the myth that continuous one-to-one midwifery support in labour is expensive. Indeed, it seems that the cascade of interventions from medicalised childbirth leads to high use of epidural anaesthesia and steep increases in costs. Conversely, one-to-one support achieves lower use of epidural and lower rates of operative delivery. Those of us involved in management as clinical directors can now argue that more midwives are a cheap alternative to costly, high intervention medicalised birth. This article will, at least contribute to the ‘facts’ rather than the ‘unfacts’ that surround the debate on the mode of delivery (see the letter from Danielian and Nikolaou on page 784). The costs and capacity of the NHS may be decisive factors in the decision about mode of delivery, given the evidence comparing vaginal delivery with elective caesarean section, which shows small differences with respect to perinatal and maternal morbidity. How ironic if finally the tide of fashion is turned by economics, instead of clinical considerations, or the priorities of women themselves!

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)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3890.184

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 head0.452
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.050 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & GynaecologySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207