The Efficacy of Membrane Sweeping at Term and Effect on the Duration of Pregnancy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of membrane sweeping on the duration of pregnancy at term and induction rate. The study design was a randomized controlled trial. Method: The study conducted at the King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, from January 1, 2011 to January 1 2012. One hundred and sixty women with uncomplicated pregnancy attending the antenatal clinic and delivery room were randomized to membrane sweeping (study group, n = 80) or no sweeping (control group, n = 80) at 38 weeks of gestation. Results: Most of the women who underwent membrane sweeping entered spontaneous labor (90 vs. 75%), with a significant difference in mean gestational age (39.5 ± 0.9 vs. 40.0 ± 1.2, P = 0.004). The overall incidence of pregnant women at 41 week gestation was 10 % in women who underwent membrane sweeping and 25% in the controls (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.2 - 7.3, P = 0.01). The induction rate was less in study compared to control group (10 % vs. 25%; P = 0.01). There were no differences in the incidence of cesarean delivery, or maternal or fetal morbidity between the two groups. Conclusion: Sweeping of the membranes at term is safe and reduces the incidence of post-date gestation. Most women required only a single cervical sweeping. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2014;3(1):30-34 doi: http://dx.doi.o rg/10.14740/jcgo225 w
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".