LO-025 Increasing pre-eclampsia knowledge and higher prevalence of aspirin use in SLE with a specific educational tool: interim analyses of a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Pregnant SLE women are at high risk of pre-eclampsia. Aspirin reduces its risk but is used only in a minority of SLE pregnancies. This randomized controlled trial evaluated a specifically-designed educational tool on pre-eclampsia knowledge, aspirin use and adherence in SLE pregnancies. We present interim results. Methods We recruited pregnant SLE women up to 16 gestational weeks at 5 Canadian SLICC centres. Participants were randomly assigned to the educational tool (intervention) or standard of care (control). At every pregnancy visit, participants completed pre-eclampsia questionnaire, aspirin survey, and modified Adherence to Refills and Medications Scale (ARMS). We performed Student’s t-test and univariate linear regression to assess pre-eclampsia knowledge, and estimated 95% CI for difference in proportion of aspirin users using the Wilson procedure. We evaluated mean ARMS score difference with Student’s t-test and Mann-Whitney U test. Results Thirty-eight women were included, with 20 exposed to the intervention. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced. The difference in mean pre-eclampsia knowledge scores between 1st and 2nd trimester visits in the intervention group was 5.0 points (95% CI 1.4, 8.6) and 1.1 points (95% CI -3.1, 5.4) in the control group when all women were included regardless of fetal loss. The mean difference in scores for those receiving the educational tool was 4.1 points higher (95% CI 0.4, 7.9) than those receiving standard of care. There was a trend of higher aspirin use in the intervention group. Aspirin adherence was high regardless of intervention status. Conclusions Midway into the trial, pre-eclampsia knowledge improved from 1st to 2nd trimester visits in pregnant SLE women who received the tool compared to those who did not. There was a trend of higher aspirin use in women receiving the educational tool. The trial is well-poised to provide a new evidence-based approach to improve pre-eclampsia knowledge and potentially optimize aspirin use and pregnancy outcomes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".