MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6977646103 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.8137676

The association between antiretroviral therapy and early placental function: a cohort study

2019· article· en· W6977646103 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfoundingCohort studyBiomarkerAntiretroviral therapyPregnancyGestationCohortGestational age

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To evaluate the association of antiretroviral therapy (ART) type and duration of exposure with early placental function using biomarkers of aneuploidy screening. Study design: Three hundred thirty-eight pregnant women living with HIV were enrolled in two Canadian centers. Multiple linear regressions were performed adjusting for confounding factors (race, age, gestational age, body mass index, parity, smoking, and fetal sex). Results: Women receiving ART had significantly increased second trimester alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels (β = 0.147, 95% CI = [0.067–0.227] for protease inhibitor-based ART and β = 0.176, 95% CI = [0.080–0.272] for ART without protease inhibitor) compared to women who received no treatment. However, there was no significant association between ART type and the levels of free β-human chorionic gonadotrophin (β-hCG), pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (first trimester), unconjugated estriol, total hCG, and inhibin A (second trimester). No significant association was shown between biomarker levels and duration of ART exposure. Conclusion: Early placental function does not appear to be significantly affected by ART, except for AFP.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→