Review: planned early birth after prelabour rupture of membranes at term has benefits for mother and infant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dare MR, Middleton P, Crowther CA, et al. Planned early birth versus expectant management (waiting) for prelabour rupture of membranes at term (37 weeks or more). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;(1):CD005302. Q In pregnant women with prelabour rupture of membranes (PROM) at term, is planned early birth better for the mother and infant than expectant management? Clinical impact ratings Obstetrics ★★★★★★★ Paediatrics ★★★★★☆☆ Infectious disease ★★★★☆☆☆ ### ![Graphic][1]</img>Data sources: Medline, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (November 2004), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (issue 4, 2004), and reference lists. ### ![Graphic][2]</img>Study selection and assessment: randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared planned early birth (intervention implemented within 24 h) and expectant management (no intervention for ⩾24 h) in pregnant women with PROM at ⩾37 weeks’ gestation. 12 RCTs (n = 6846 women) reporting 13 comparisons met the selection criteria. The active management intervention used was induction of labour with oxytocin in 7 RCTs, prostaglandin in 5 RCTs, and caulophyllum in 1 … [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [2]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".