Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Labor is among the most painful experiences that humans encounter. Neuraxial analgesia is the most effective means of treating this pain. In this review, we discussed the effect of neuraxial analgesia on the progress of labor when compared with parenteral opioids. We then compared initiation of analgesia with a combined spinal-epidural technique (CSE) to conventional epidural analgesia. Finally we discussed the impact of neuraxial analgesia, given early in labor, compared with later administration. RECENT FINDINGS: Compared with parenteral opioids, neuraxial analgesia does not increase the incidence of cesarean section, although it is associated with a longer (approximately 16 min) second stage of labor. The incidence of operative vaginal delivery is higher in the epidural group but this may be due to indirect reasons such as changes in physician behavior. There was no difference in labor outcome when CSE was compared with low-concentration epidural analgesia, but higher concentrations may prolong labor. Early administration of neuraxial analgesia does not increase the incidence of operative delivery or prolong labor. SUMMARY: Neuraxial analgesia does not interfere with the progress or outcome of labor. There is no need to withhold neuraxial analgesia until the active stage of labor.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".