A systematic review of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome in pregnant women with severe preeclampsia and eclampsia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The association of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) and severe preeclampsia/eclampsia has been established but the frequency is uncertain. Objectives: To determine the frequency of PRES in severe preeclampsia or eclampsia. Methods: We searched published articles in PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, and CINAHL from 1990 to 2020. We included articles that reported on six or more cases of PRES with eclampsia or severe preeclampsia who underwent neuroimaging during pregnancy or up to 6 weeks postpartum. Results: We identified 29 studies presenting data on 1519 women with eclampsia or severe preeclampsia. Among 342 women with eclampsia who had neuroimaging, 176 (51.4%) were diagnosed with PRES. Of 121 women with severe preeclampsia, 24 (19.8%) had PRES. The pooled maternal death rate was 5.3% (21/395). Conclusion: PRES is commonly reported on neuroimaging of women with eclampsia/ severe preeclampsia. The role of neuroimaging in eclampsia and especially in women with severe preeclampsia requires re-evaluation as further management is often dictated by this finding.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it