MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1932980672 · doi:10.1177/014107680009300703

Urgency of caesarean section: A new classification

2000· article· en· W1932980672 on OpenAlexaff
D. N. Lucas, S. M. Yentis, Stephen Kinsella, Anita Holdcroft, Anne M. May, Minnesota Wee, P.N. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSection (typography)Caesarean sectionComputer scienceMedicineData sciencePregnancyInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebGynecologyBiologyOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new classification for caesarean section was developed in a two-part study conducted at six hospitals. Initially, 90 anaesthetists and obstetricians graded ten clinical scenarios according to five different classification methods--visual analogue scale; suitable anaesthetic technique; maximum time to delivery; clinical definitions; and a 1-5 rating scale. Clinical definitions was the most consistent and useful, and this method was then applied prospectively to 407 caesarean sections at the same six hospitals. There was close agreement (86%) between anaesthetists and obstetricians for the five-point scale (weighted kappa 0.89), increasing to 90% if two categories were combined (weighted kappa 0.91). We suggest that the resultant four-grade classification system--(i) immediate threat to life of woman or fetus; (ii) maternal or fetal compromise which is not immediately life-threatening; (iii) needing early delivery but no maternal or fetal compromise; (iv) at a time to suit the patient and maternity team--should be adopted by multidisciplinary groups with an interest in maternity data collection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations465
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Society of MedicineSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207