MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1597610447 · doi:10.1002/jcu.22229

The role of sonographic cervical length in labor induction at term

2014· review· en· W1597610447 on OpenAlex
Jessica Papillon‐Smith, Haim A. Abenhaim

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Ultrasound · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLabor inductionInduction of laborUltrasoundTerm (time)ObstetricsGynecologyRadiologyPregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to review the literature examining the role of ultrasound in the induction of labor. Databases including Ovid, PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and UpToDate were searched and current guidelines from the SOGC, the ACOG, the RCOG, and the RANZCOG were reviewed. Although studies have not demonstrated the superiority of cervical sonography to the Bishop score, the evidence indicates that sonography could be useful in planning induction of labor, significantly reducing the need for cervical ripening agents. A more comprehensive method integrating both sonography and digital exam may be more appropriate.

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.

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)0.003
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.382 · 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