Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Up to 30% of mothers develop acute pyelonephritis if asymptomatic bacteriuria is untreated. Asymptomatic bacteriuria may have a role in preterm birth, or it may be a marker for low socioeconomic status and thus, low birth weight. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effect of antibiotic treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria on persistent bacteriuria during pregnancy, the risk of preterm delivery and the development of pyelonephritis after delivery. SEARCH STRATEGY: I searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing antibiotic treatment with placebo or no treatment in pregnant women with asymptomatic bacteriuria found on antenatal screening. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was assessed. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included. Overall the study quality was not strong. Antibiotic treatment compared to placebo or no treatment was effective in clearing asymptomatic bacteriuria (odds ratio 0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.10). The incidence of pyelonephritis was reduced (odds ratio 0.25, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 0.32). Antibiotic treatment was also associated with a reduction in the incidence of preterm delivery or low birth weight babies (odds ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.80). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic treatment appears to be effective in reducing the risk of pyelonephritis in pregnancy. An apparent reduction in preterm delivery is consistent with current theories about the role of infection in preterm birth, but this association should be interpreted with caution.
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 | 0.009 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".