MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6945975374 · doi:10.26262/heal.auth.ir.364914

Guidelines review on the use of antenatal corticosteroids for enhanced newborn outcomes

2025· article· en· W6945975374 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAristotle University of Thessaloniki · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPregnancyPrenatal careMEDLINEPerinatal medicineObstetrics and gynaecologyMaternal morbidityMaternal healthPremature birth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this thesis is to review and compare the most recent guidelines issued by international medical organizations on the use of antenatal corticosteroids to improve perinatal outcomes in pregnancies at risk of preterm birth. The thesis examines recommendations from the World Health Organization, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. It discusses the recommended timing for corticosteroid administration, including extremely preterm and late preterm births, as well as planned cesarean delivery. Additional scenarios such as multiple gestation, prelabor rupture of membranes, diabetes, fetal growth restriction, and hypertensive disorders are addressed. The review also evaluates the current evidence on repeat and rescue courses. While antenatal corticosteroids remain a cornerstone of perinatal care, ongoing research is needed regarding their long-term effects. An individualized, evidence-based approach is emphasized to ensure optimal benefit with minimal risk.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAristotle University of ThessalonikiSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207