MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Uterine Compression Sutures for Postpartum Hemorrhage

2007· article· en· W1965823391 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas F. Baskett

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlacenta previaHysterectomyObstetricsPlacenta accretaPregnancyUterine ruptureFibrous jointBlood transfusionBlood lossSurgeryUterusGynecologyFetusPlacenta

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review the efficacy, morbidity, and subsequent pregnancy outcome after uterine compression sutures for severe postpartum hemorrhage. METHODS: A 7-year review (2000-2006) of all uterine compression sutures for postpartum hemorrhage at one tertiary obstetric hospital. RESULTS: During the 7 years, 28 uterine compression sutures were performed in 31,519 deliveries (1 per 1,126). All were done at the time of cesarean delivery: 22 in 4,870 cesarean deliveries in labor (1 in 221) and 6 in 3,819 elective cesarean deliveries (1 in 637). The indications for suture were atonic postpartum hemorrhage in 25 of 28 (89%), placenta previa in 2 of 28 (7%), and partial placenta accreta in 1 of 28 (4%). Hysterectomy was avoided in 23 of 28 women (82%). Blood transfusion was needed in 13 of 28 (46%), and intensive care in 5 of 28 (18%). Seven women had subsequent uncomplicated term pregnancies, all delivered by elective repeat caesarean delivery. CONCLUSION: Uterine compression sutures for severe postpartum hemorrhage may obviate the need for hysterectomy and appear not to jeopardize subsequent pregnancy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations93
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrics and GynecologySame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207