Risk of Intrapartum Cervical Lacerations in Vaginal Singleton Deliveries in Women With Cerclage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We examined the obstetric outcomes of singleton vaginal deliveries in women with cerclage at our institute to confirm the risk of intrapartum cervical lacerations in vaginal deliveries of women with cerclage. METHODS: Data on all Japanese singleton vaginal deliveries at ≥ 34 weeks' gestation managed at the Japanese Red Cross Katsushika Maternity Hospital between 2008 and 2014 were collected. RESULTS: During the study period, cervical cerclage was performed in 95 of 9,490 (1.0%) women with singleton pregnancy at 12 - 22 weeks of singleton pregnancy who delivered at ≥ 34 weeks' gestation. The incidence of intrapartum cervical lacerations and postpartum hemorrhage ≥ 1,000 mL in the women with cerclage were higher significantly than that in the women without cerclage (cervical lacerations: crude odds ratio (OR): 26.9, 95% confidence interval (CI): 14 - 51, P < 0.01; postpartum hemorrhage: crude OR: 2.86, 95% CI: 1.6 - 4.9, P < 0.01). Using a multivariate analysis, cerclage was independently associated with the increased incidence of intrapartum cervical lacerations (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Cervical cerclage is an independent risk factor of intrapartum cervical lacerations in vaginal deliveries.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".