A FIGO/SOGC Collaboration—<i>SOGC Clinical Practice Guidelines</i> in the IJGO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
André B. Lalonde, M.D. Executive Vice-President The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) is pleased to provide the SOGC Clinical Practice Guidelines for publication on a regular basis in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics (IJGO). In this collaboration, the editor of the IJGO will select existing guidelines that have been approved by the SOGC that he believes will be of the greatest interest to the many readers of the IJGO around the world. The developmental process of the SOGC Guidelines is rigorous. A committee of experts is brought together and a relevant clinical practice committee reviews many iterations of a guideline prior to submission for approval by the Executive and Council Committee of the SOGC. The guidelines are evidence based, using the latest information and making extensive use of data bases such as the Cochrane Library. All recommendations are graded with the highest recommendation (level 1) given when evidence is supplied by randomized controlled trials. Level 3 evidence is given for clinical practice, that is, evidence recommended by a committee of experts but for which further studies are needed. The SOGC is pleased to provide these guidelines to the IJGO. They may be reproduced, printed or modified without having to seek any approval from the SOGC. We encourage member associations of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) and individuals to use these guidelines and to adapt them to their own clinical environments. The guidelines are produced to help all physicians maintain excellence in delivering clinical practice to women in Canada and abroad. The complete list as well as the text of all our guidelines are available on the SOGC website at www.sogc.org. The SOGC Guidelines are divided according to clinical practice of obstetrics and gynecology. The SOGC also produces policy statements on various issues, such as midwifery care, sexual education and many other relevant women's health issues. During the last few months, we have updated our guidelines in the areas of operative vaginal delivery and vaginal birth after cesarean section. With the increase of cesarean sections worldwide and the concerns of the public and governments about this increase, it is important that we promote evidence based guidelines that will lead to a cesarean section rate that is reasonable and medically defendable, and that addresses the need of women worldwide. The SOGC recommends that all national societies use these guidelines as a template and adapt them to the needs of their countries and/or practice groups. In a partnership project between the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Uganda, Associations des obstétriciens et gynécologues de Haiti, and the Guatemala Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, we have exchanged guidelines and these societies have adapted them to their local conditions and circumstances. The SOGC has produced guidelines for over 20 years; these guidelines are well respected and have been frequently used in medicolegal cases to protect and defend the action of physicians. We are proud that the SOGC Clinical Practice Guidelines have stood the test of time, and we hope that with regular publication in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, they will find an even wider audience worldwide.
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 | 0.042 | 0.207 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.078 |
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".