MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250007683 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008371

Antenatal interventions for preventing the transmission of cytomegalovirus (CMV) from the mother to fetus during pregnancy and adverse outcomes in the congenitally infected infant

2010· reference-entry· en· W4250007683 on OpenAlexaff
Fergus P. McCarthy, Michelle Giles, Shelley Rowlands, Kara J Purcell, Cheryl Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2010
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCytomegalovirusPsychological interventionPregnancyAdverse effectFetusObstetricsTransmission (telecommunications)Intervention (counseling)PediatricsCytomegalovirus infectionIntensive care medicineHuman cytomegalovirusImmunologyViral diseaseHerpesviridaeHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)VirusInternal medicinePsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: The aim of this review is to assess the benefits and harms of interventions used during pregnancy to prevent mother to fetus transmission of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. The secondary aim is to assess the efficacy of these interventions in reducing adverse outcomes in the congenitally infected newborn or infant. We will not consider interventions to prevent primary maternal infection and postnatal interventions to prevent sequelae from congenital CMV infection in this review.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus researchFrench-language works237,207