MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398156239 · doi:10.1097/ogx.0000000000001261

Antenatal Care: A Comparative Review of Guidelines

2024· review· en· W4398156239 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eirini Boureka, Ιoannis Tsakiridis, Nikolaos Kostakis, Sonia Giouleka, Apostolos Mamopoulos, Ioannis Kalogiannidis, Apostolos Athanasiadis, Themistoklis Dagklis

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicinePsychological interventionPregnancyHealth careNursingObstetrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Antenatal care plays a crucial role in safely monitoring and ensuring the well-being of both the mother and the fetus during pregnancy, ultimately leading to the best possible perinatal outcomes. Objective: The aim of this study was to review and compare the most recently published guidelines on antenatal care. Evidence Acquisition: A descriptive review of guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the World Health Organization, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists regarding antenatal care was conducted. Results: There is a consensus among the reviewed guidelines regarding the necessary appointments during the antenatal period, the proper timing for induction of labor, the number and frequency of laboratory examinations for the assessment of mother's well-being, and management strategies for common physiological problems during pregnancy, such as nausea and vomiting, heartburn, pelvic pain, leg cramps, and symptomatic vaginal discharge. In addition, special consideration should be given for mental health issues and timely referral to a specialist, reassurance of complete maternal vaccination, counseling for safe use of medical agents, and advice for cessation of substance, alcohol, and tobacco use during pregnancy. Controversy surrounds clinical evaluation during the antenatal period, particularly when it comes to the routine use of an oral glucose tolerance test and symphysis-fundal height measurement for assessing fetal growth, whereas routine cardiotocography and fetal movement counting are suggested practices only by Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Of note, recommendations on nutritional interventions and supplementation are offered only by Public Health Agency of Canada and World Health Organization, with some minor discrepancies in the optimal dosage. Conclusions: Antenatal care remains a critical factor in achieving positive outcomes, but there are variations depending on the socioeconomic status of each country. Therefore, the establishment of consistent international protocols for optimal antenatal care is of utmost importance. This can help provide safe guidance for healthcare providers and, consequently, improve both maternal and fetal 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 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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.130
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.130
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0260.026
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.415
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.117 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207