MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249231452 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/ju4x9

Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on the clinical outcomes and placental pathology of pregnant women and their infants: A Systematic Review

2020· review· en· W4249231452 on OpenAlexafffund
Irina Oltean, Jason Tran, Sarah Lawrence, Brittany Ann Ruschkowski, Na Zeng, Cameron Bardwell, Youssef Nasr, Joseph de Nanassy, Dina El Demellawy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Impact on Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyGestational diabetesPreeclampsiaObstetricsMedical recordCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Gestational ageDiseaseGestationPediatricsInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pregnant women are susceptible to viral infections due to physiological changes such as cell-mediated immunity. No severe adverse pregnancy or neonatal outcomes have been consistently reported in COVID-19 positive pregnancy cases. There are controversies around the role of COVID-19 in pregnancy. A systematic review was conducted to examine clinical maternal and neonatal clinical outcomes. Studies were included if they reported COVID-19 infection among pregnant women and/or COVID-19 positive neonates as validated by positive antibody testing or viral testing using Polymerase Chain Reaction. Case series, case reports, case-control studies, and comparative studies were included. 837 records were identified, resulting in 525 records for level I screening. 41 were included after full-text review. Results suggest elevated rates of ICU admission, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, C-sections, pre-term birth, and CRP in comparison to pregnant women without SARS-CoV-2. Careful monitoring of pregnancies with SARS-CoV-2 to minimize adverse clinical outcomes is recommended.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCOVID-19 Impact on ReproductionFrench-language works237,207