Closure of the uterine incision with one or two layers after caesarean section: a randomized controlled study in sheep
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of the uterine scar with one or two layer closure after caesarean section by studying biomechanical and pathological properties of the scar. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial performed on eight term pregnant ewes assigned into two groups during caesarean according to type of uterine closure: single-layer or double-layer. Hysterectomy was performed 8 months after caesarean delivery. Tensile strength of all scars and of unscarred myometrium was measured. Pathological properties of the scars were analyzed histologically. RESULTS: The force required to reach the yield point was similar between scarred and unscarred myometrium (p=0.96), and between the scars in single-layer and double-layer closure groups (p=0.65). There was a significant increase in fibrosis width on the superficial part of the uterus in the double-layer closure group compared to the single-layer group (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Double-layer uterine closure modified wound healing without significant change in biomechanical properties.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".