MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404170455 · doi:10.1016/s2352-3026(24)00314-4

Variations in antenatal management and outcomes in haemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn: an international, retrospective, observational cohort study

2024· article· en· W4404170455 on OpenAlexaff
Derek de Winter, Enrico Lopriore, E. Thorup, Olav Bjørn Petersen, Morten Hanefeld Dziegiel, Karin Sundberg, Roland Devlieger, Luc De Catte, Liesbeth Lewi, Anne Debeer, V. Houfflin‐Debarge, Louise Ghesquière, Charles Garabédian, Kévin Le Duc, E. Antolín, N H Segura Méndez, James Castleman, Wing Ting Tse, Jean‐Marie Jouannic, P Maurice, Jane Currie, Emma Mullen, L. Geerts, Kerry Rademan, Asma Khalil, Borna Poljak, Smriti Prasad, Eleonor Tiblad, Kajsa Bohlin, Annegret Geipel, Johanna Rath, Fergal D. Malone, David Mackin, Yoav Yinon, Stav Cohen, Greg Ryan, Evangelia Vlachodimitropoulou, Karl‐Philipp Gloning, Stefan Verlohren, Beate Mayer, Mariano Lanna, S. Faiola, Tanja Premru Sršen, Lilijana Kornhauser Cerar, Saul Snowise, Luming Sun, Lucas Otaño, César Meller, Ngina Connors, Matthew A. Saxonhouse, A Wolter, Ivonne Bedei, Philipp Klaritsch, Sarah F. Jauch, Eduardo Teixeira da Silva Ribeiro, Fernando Maia Peixoto Filho, R.J. Martinez‐Portilla, Alexandra Matias, Obdulia Alejos Abad, Juan Parra Roca, Ángel Guillermo Alcázar Grisi, Johanna G van der Bom, Masja de Haas, E. J. T. Verweij

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Haematology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyRetrospective cohort studyFetusCohort studyHaemolytic diseaseCohortPediatricsObstetricsPregnancyIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet HaematologySame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207