Recurrence of Obstetric Third-Degree and Fourth-Degree Anal Sphincter Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine outcomes after primary obstetric anal sphincter injuries in a subsequent pregnancy. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collated data from a large perinatal database between 2006 and 2010. Primiparous vaginal deliveries with an obstetric anal sphincter injury were identified and tracked to identify their subsequent delivery characteristics and perineal outcomes. RESULTS: A primary obstetric anal sphincter injury occurred in 5.3% of primiparous vaginal deliveries (9,857/186,239); of those patients, 2,093 had a subsequent delivery, and 91.9% delivered vaginally (1,923/2,093). The recurrent obstetric anal sphincter injury rate was also found to be 5.3% (102/1,923). The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for primary obstetric anal sphincter injuries were significantly increased in large-for-gestational-age neonates for both third-degree laceration (adjusted OR 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-2.2) and fourth-degree laceration (adjusted OR 2.7, 95% CI 2.3-3.1) and almost all obstetric interventions studied. The adjusted ORs for recurrent obstetric anal sphincter injuries were significant for large-for-gestational-age (25/102, adjusted OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.3-3.6) and instrumental deliveries (15/102, adjusted OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.2-4.6). CONCLUSION: In this study population, the incidence of recurrent obstetric anal sphincter injuries was similar to that of primary obstetric anal sphincter injuries, and most patients went on to deliver vaginally for subsequent deliveries. The risk of recurrent obstetric anal sphincter injuries was doubled in those who delivered a large-for-gestational-age neonate and in those who had an instrumental delivery.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".