MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396231399 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078315

Maternal positional therapy for fetal growth and customised birth weight centile benefit in a Bayesian reanalysis of a double-blind, sham-controlled, randomised clinical trial

2024· article· en· W4396231399 on OpenAlexaff
Jerry Coleman, Sahibjot Grewal, Jane Warland, Sebastian R. Hobson, Kuan Liu, Allan J. Kember

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyGestationRandomized controlled trialBody mass indexObstetricsBirth weightPediatricsClinical trialGestational ageFetusInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To update the Ghana PrenaBelt Trial's (GPT) primary outcome data with the latest fetal growth standard and reanalyse it. To estimate the posterior probability, under various clinically relevant prior probabilities, of maternal nightly positional therapy (PT) throughout the third-trimester having a beneficial effect on customised birth weight centile (CBWC) using Bayesian analyses. DESIGN: A reanalysis of a double-blind, sham-controlled, randomised clinical trial. SETTING: A single, tertiary-level centre in Accra, Ghana. PARTICIPANTS: at the first antenatal appointment for the index pregnancy and without known fetal abnormalities, pregnancy complications or medical conditions complicating sleep. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to receive treatment with either a PT or sham-PT device. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the CBWC using the latest Perinatal Institute, Gestation-Related Optimal Weight calculator. Using Bayesian methods, posterior probabilities of achieving a greater than 0%, 5% and 10% benefit in CBWC with PT were estimated. There was no secondary outcome. RESULTS: The median (IQR) CBWC was 42% (15-71) and 28% (9-52) in the PT and sham-PT groups, respectively (difference 8.4%; 95% CI -0.30 to 18.2; p=0.06). For achieving a >0%, >5% and >10% gain in CBWC with PT, the posterior probabilities were highly probable, probable and unlikely, respectively, given a range of prior probabilities reflecting varying degrees of pre-existing enthusiasm and scepticism. CONCLUSIONS: Maternal nightly PT throughout the third-trimester did not have a statistically significant effect on CBWC on a frequentist analysis using the latest fetal growth standard. However, from a Bayesian analysis, clinicians can infer that PT is likely to benefit fetal growth but with a modest effect size. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02379728.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.010
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies→French-language works237,207→