Does having a patient attend a postpartum vascular risk reduction clinic improve physician knowledge and management of preeclampsia as a cardiovascular risk factor?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Preeclampsia is an independent risk factor for vascular diseases. The Postpartum Preeclampsia Clinic (PPPC) intervenes in the first year postpartum to address these risks. This study aims to characterize physicians' understanding and management of the cardiovascular risk associated with preeclampsia and whether this differs in physicians who had a patient attend the PPPC. Methods: Family physicians, obstetricians, internists, obstetric internists, and cardiologists in Edmonton were anonymously surveyed. Results were analyzed using SPSS. Results: Sixty-four surveys were returned, with physicians correctly identifying preeclampsia as a vascular risk factor 73% of the time. Physicians who had a patient attend the PPPC were more likely to counsel patients on their increased cardiovascular risk, although increased knowledge did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: Vascular risk reduction clinics may benefit the long-term management of patients with a history of preeclampsia by improving counseling by physicians, which may reduce the disproportionate vascular morbidity these patients face.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".