Factors Predicting Labor Induction Success: A Critical Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of the risk of failed induction of labor, a variety of maternal and fetal factors as well as screening tests have been suggested to predict labor induction success. Certain characteristics of the woman (including parity, age, weight, height and body mass index), and of the fetus (including birth weight and gestational age) are associated with the success of labor induction; with parous, young women who are taller and lower weight having a higher rate of induction success. Fetuses with a lower birth weight or increased gestational age are also associated with increased induction success. The condition of the cervix at the start of induction is an important predictor, with the modified Bishop score being a widely used scoring system. The most important element of the Bishop score is dilatation. Other predictors, including transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) and biochemical markers [including fetal fibronectin (fFN)] have been suggested. Meta-analyses of studies identified from MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE and published from 1990 to October 2005 were performed evaluating the use of TVUS and fFN in predicting labor induction success in women at term with singleton gestations. Both TVUS and Bishop score predicted successful induction [likelihood ratio (LR)=1.82, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.51-2.20 and LR=2.10, 95%CI=1.67-2.64, respectively]. As well, fFN and Bishop score predicted successful induction (LR=1.49, 95%CI=1.20-1.85, and LR=2.62, 95%CI=1.88-3.64, respectively). Although TVUS and fFN predicted successful labor induction, neither has been shown to be superior to Bishop score. Further research is needed to evaluate these potential predictors and insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 (IGFBP-1), another potential biochemical marker.
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.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it