MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416217973 · doi:10.17615/pfv0-y187

Improving health equity through clinical innovation

2025· article· en· W4416217973 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kristin P. Tully, Myrtede Alfred

Bibliographic record

VenueUNC Libraries · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomedical and Engineering Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth equityChildbirthEthnic groupEquity (law)Pacific islandersHealth careMortality ratePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite having the most expensive system of maternity care in the world, outcomes for birthing people in the USA are worse than other high-income nations. Critically, US outcomes also reflect deep and persistent racial and ethnic health disparities. The maternal mortality rate (deaths occurring within 42 days of pregnancy per 100 000 live births) in the USA was 23.8 in 2020, the highest of all comparable countries. Non-Hispanic black (NHB) and Native American individuals are two to three times more likely to die during or after childbirth compared with those who are non-Hispanic white (NHW). In contrast, maternal mortality outcomes for Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islanders are generally comparable with those of NHW individuals, though some research findings suggest health disparities among specific subgroups. NHB and Native Americans also experience higher rates of severe maternal morbidity (SMM), resulting in significant short-term or long-term consequences to their health. While mortality rates among industrialised countries are highest in the USA, racial and ethnic disparities in outcomes have also been noted in Brazil, Canada, the Netherlands and the UK.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0020.015
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.006

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUNC LibrariesSame topicBiomedical and Engineering EducationFrench-language works237,207