MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394729577 · doi:10.23880/whsj-16000224

Pre-Conception Counseling

2024· article· en· W4394729577 on OpenAlexfundno aff
A Haider

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen s Health Science Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of KarachiUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pre-conception counseling is an active component of generative healthcare aimed at optimizing gestation effects by addressing potential risks and advancing motherly and fetal health. This comprehensive approach includes determining medical and hereditary factors, referring to practices or policies that do not negatively affect the environment, and lifestyle determinants to recognize and mitigate potential impediments to a healthy gestation. Key components of pre-conception giving advice involve discussing records of what happened, incessant conditions, cures, vaccinations, genetic screening, food, exercise, and behavior modifications. One significant facet of bias counseling includes labeling and managing pre-existing medical environments that can impact pregnancy. This contains incessant diseases in the way that diabetes, hypertension, and autoimmune disorders place optimization of affliction control before the idea can defeat adverse motherly and before-birth outcomes. Additionally, judging drug safety and examining potential risks and benefits with sufferers is done by ensuring appropriate administration before birth. Genetic counseling plays a crucial role in bias counseling, especially for couples with an ancestry of inherited disorders. Genetic testing can evaluate one who carries or transmits a status for differing hereditary conditions, admitting informed accountability concerning reproductive alternatives and fetal testing.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomen s Health Science JournalSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207