MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416146067 · doi:10.1186/s12978-025-02080-4

Implementation of the multicountry WHO COVID-19 pregnancy cohort study: challenges and lessons learned during the pandemic

2025· article· en· W4416146067 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Laura Costa, Renato T. Souza, José Guilherme Cecatti, Sami L. Gottlieb, Marie Delnord, Soe Soe Thwin, Ndema Habib, Ronaldo Silva, Daniel Giordano, Anna Thorson, Nathalie Broutet, Edgardo Ábalos, Séni Kouanda, Kwasi Torpey, Emefa Modey, Erlidia F. Llamas‐Clark, Saleem Jessani, Marleen Temmerman, Ingrid Gichere, Beth Maina, Henda Triki, Mariem Gdoura, Ibukun‐Oluwa Omolade Abejirinde, Alejandro Orrico‐Sánchez, Sergio Muñoz, Edna Kara

Bibliographic record

VenueReproductive Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Impact on Reproduction
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsPandemicReproductive medicinePregnancyPublic healthVaccinationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)CohortCohort studyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: A generic research protocol was developed for a prospective cohort study to allow systematic, harmonized data collection of the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination during pregnancy on maternal, obstetric, and neonatal outcomes across different settings. This article describes the study conception, development, implementation, challenges, and key lessons learned within study sites across the world. METHODS: The protocol was implemented in 43 facilities in 10 countries during the pandemic, involving consecutive recruitment of over 16,000 pregnant or postpartum women. We evaluated selection of study sites, ethical approvals, staff recruitment and training, recruitment and follow-up, and incorporation of new elements over the course of the pandemic across the study sites. RESULTS: Study implementation in multiple LMIC settings was feasible; however, major challenges included delays in study implementation due to ethical approval procedures and availability of testing for exposure assessment. Implementation of research during a constantly evolving pandemic context led to the need for amended protocols, adjusted sample sizes, new outcomes and variables, repeated review by the Ethical Committees and adapted laboratory protocols. For example, the first COVID-19 vaccines became available after the study had started, with the need to modify the data collection forms and serologic testing algorithm to allow incorporation of this information in the study structure and analysis. CONCLUSION: Study implementation during a pandemic in different countries and periods was challenging but is not only expected to provide important information on the effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination on pregnancy, but also on conducting research during future outbreaks. More streamlined ethics reviews during pandemics, availability of generic protocols in advance, and sites in LMICs ready to activate in an outbreak, as opposed to triggering processes during a crisis, would be highly beneficial.

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)0.331
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.188
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3310.188
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.364 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproductive HealthSame topicCOVID-19 Impact on ReproductionFrench-language works237,207