Recent advances in patient-controlled epidural analgesia for labour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) is a relatively new mode of maintenance of labour analgesia. The purpose of this review is to demonstrate that PCEA has several advantages over continuous-infusion analgesia and to discuss recent refinements in the use of PCEA for labour. RECENT FINDINGS: Early investigations showed that PCEA without background infusion reduced the incidence of motor block and the amount of local anaesthetic needed to produce satisfactory analgesia compared to continuous infusions. Recent studies have shown that the addition of a background infusion to PCEA may be advantageous, depending on the patient population and the rate of the continuous infusion. Both bupivacaine and ropivacaine have been used in PCEA but ropivacaine may be associated with a reduced incidence of motor block in parturients who have epidural analgesia for long periods of time. Of note, very low concentrations of local anaesthetics are required to produce satisfactory analgesia. SUMMARY: PCEA has proven to be a safe, convenient, and highly effective way to maintain labour analgesia. Parturients appreciate the control they have over the analgesia received throughout labour when this method is used.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".