MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effectiveness and safety of the oxytocin antagonist atosiban versus beta‐adrenergic agonists in the treatment of preterm labour

2001· article· en· W1876794067 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPreterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTocolytic agentTocolyticOxytocinAdverse effectRitodrineTerbutalinePopulationGestational ageSalbutamolAnesthesiaObstetricsGestationPregnancyInternal medicinePreterm labor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To compare the effectiveness and safety of the oxytocin antagonist atosiban with conventional beta‐adrenergic agonist (beta‐agonist) therapy in the treatment of preterm labour. Design Three multinational, multicentre, double‐blind, randomised, controlled trials. Setting Hospitals in Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Israel, Sweden, and the UK. Population Women diagnosed with preterm labour at 23–33 completed weeks of gestation. Methods Seven hundred and forty‐two women were randomised; 733 received atosiban ( n =363; intravenous (iv) bolus dose of 6.75 mg, then 300 μg/minute iv. for 3h and 100 μg/min iv thereafter) or beta‐agonist ( n =379; ritodrine, salbutamol or terbutaline iv; dose titrated) for at least 18h and up to 48 hours. Uterine contraction rate, cervical dilatation and effacement were used to assess progression of labour. An all patients treated analysis, using the Cochran‐Mantel‐Haenszel test, was performed. Main outcome measures Tocolytic effectiveness was assessed in terms of the number of women undelivered after 48 hours and seven days. Safety was assessed in terms of maternal side effects and neonatal morbidity. Results There were no significant differences between atosiban and β ‐agonists in delaying delivery for 48h (88.1% vs 88.9%; P =0.99) or seven days (79.7% versus 77.6%; P =0.28). Tocolytic effectiveness was also similar in terms of mean [SD] gestational age at delivery (35.8 [3.9] weeks vs 35.5 [4.1] weeks) and mean [SD] birthweight (2491 [813] g versus 2461 [831] g). Maternal side effects, particularly cardiovascular adverse events (8.3% vs 81.2%, P < 0.001 ), were reported more frequently in women given β ‐agonists, resulting in more treatment discontinuations due to side effects (1.1% vs 15.4%, P =0.0001). No statistical differences in neonatal/infant outcomes were observed with either study medication. Conclusions In the largest study of tocolytic therapy to date, atosiban was comparable in clinical effectiveness to conventional beta‐agonist therapy, but was associated with fewer maternal cardiovascular side effects. We conclude that atosiban has clinical advantages over current tocolytic therapy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.282 · 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