Gruppe B-streptokokker i svangerskapet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract\n\nThe Group B Streptococcus is still the leading cause of infections in newborns. There is effective treatment available, but no global consensus exists on how to reach those women who will benefit from intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis. As a result, several countries have developed national guidelines on how to prevent GBS-disease. USA, Canada and many countries in Europe(Spain, Belgium, Italy) have chosen a universal screening strategy. This means screening of every pregnant woman in gestational week 35-37 and antibiotic treatment of those with GBS colonization. This strategy differs from the one used in Norway as well as in the UK, where the approach is to treat pregnant women based on risk factors associated with GBS-disease, without any screening. \nIn this paper we discuss the different views, without making any conclusions which alternative is best. \nIn order to look into the different arguments, we review several articles with different screening-strategies.\nIn our material the main argument for pregnancy screening is the clear observed reduction of morbidity and mortality associated with GBS-disease. However, this approach will lead to excessive use of antibiotics, and the subsequent risk of serious antibiotic anaphylaxis and development of antibiotic resistance. \nAt present there is lack of good randomized controlled trials where screening- versus risk based strategies are compared. Therefore no valid conclusions can be made from an evidence based view. However, before development and introduction of a vaccine, there may never be one universal strategy that every country will benefit from.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.006 |
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.
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".