MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292497972

Aggregate analysis of oxytocin incidents.

2014· article· en· W4292497972 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOxytocinBradycardiaMedicineHarmLabor inductionPregnancyObstetricsHypoxia (environmental)AnesthesiaAdverse effectPsychologyInternal medicineHeart rate
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oxytocin is a valuable, time-tested drug and one of the most commonly used medications during labour and delivery.It acts on the smooth muscle of the uterus to stimulate contractions. In Canada, its uses include the induction of labour in patients with a medical indication for the initiation of labour; the stimulation and reinforcement of labour; and to control postpartum bleeding and hemorrhage.' As a high-alert medication, oxytocin bears a heightened risk of causing significant patient harm if used in error. For example, use of this drug to induce labour has been associated with significant adverse effects to both the mother (e.g., arrhythmias, uterine hyperstimulation, postpartum hemorrhage) and the fetus (e.g., bradycardia, hypoxia, hyperbilirubinemia, retinal hemorrhage).This bulletin shares information about incidents involving the use of oxytocin that have been voluntarily reported to the Canadian Medication Incident Reporting and Prevention System (CMIRPS). It includes an overview of the incidents and highlights major themes identified through a multi-incident analysis to raise awareness about continuous improvement opportunities for management of this medication.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0230.025
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMedical History and InnovationsFrench-language works237,207