Differences in Aspirin Use Among High-Risk Pregnancies and Associated Maternal-Fetal Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preeclampsia poses significant maternal-fetal risks and is costly to the Canadian health system. Daily aspirin has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of preterm birth associated with preeclampsia when initiated in screen-positive individuals between weeks 11-16 of pregnancy. Despite this evidence favoring aspirin prophylaxis, this preventive strategy is currently underutilized in Canada, due to challenges in identifying at-risk patients and limited publicly-funded preeclampsia screening resources. This study on aspirin prophylaxis use was done in 641 pregnant individuals with suspected hypertension in pregnancy. Statistical tools and the Donabedian framework were used to examine factors associated with aspirin non-use. Results showed that 34% of the sample population used aspirin, with a notable one-third of individuals with a prior history of preeclampsia not receiving aspirin prophylaxis. The study reveals significant underutilization of aspirin prophylaxis and underscores existing gaps in clinical practice while advocating for targeted interventions to improve rates of appropriate aspirin use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".