An educational tool to improve PREeclamPsia knowledge and Aspirin adheRence in lupus prEgnancies: the PREPARE trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of an educational tool on preeclampsia knowledge, as well as aspirin (ASA) use and adherence in pregnant SLE women. METHODS: A two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial was conducted recruiting pregnant SLE women up to 17 weeks' gestation. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either usual-care alone or usual-care plus the tool (laminated card incorporating infographics on preeclampsia in SLE and ASA for prevention). The primary outcome was difference in preeclampsia knowledge scores at the second-trimester visit. RESULTS: Of 73 women included, 38 were randomized to the intervention. In the primary analysis of ongoing pregnancies, increase in the mean preeclampsia knowledge scores was 4.0 points (95% CI: 2.4, 5.6) in the intervention group and 2.0 points (95% CI: 0.3, 3.9) in controls, with a mean difference of 1.8 points higher (95% CI: -0.5, 4.2) favouring the intervention. Including end-of-pregnancy scores of women with fetal loss (six in each group), the difference was 4.8 points (95% CI: 3.3, 6.9) in the intervention group and 1.9 points (95% CI: 0.3, 3.6) in controls, with a mean increase of 2.5 points (95% CI: 0.3, 4.8) more for the intervention. Using electronic pharmacy data, there was a trend for higher ASA adherence in the intervention group (81%) vs controls (65%; difference 15%, 95% CI: -9, 37%). CONCLUSION: Women with SLE who received an educational tool had greater improvement in preeclampsia knowledge vs controls. This tool may improve ASA use in SLE pregnancies and help optimize outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03749044.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".