Uterine Contractions' Pattern in Active Phase of Labor as a Predictor of Failure to Progress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Failure to progress remains a key indication for cesarean section which caused by different factors including uterine contractions. If it is diagnosed in the primary phase of labor, a better prognosis can thus be made. The purpose of this study was to find a possible correlation between pattern of uterine contraction and progression of labor. METHOD: During this study, 120 women referred for delivery to an educational hospital's maternity ward in the North of Iran in 2010 were included. Uterine contractions of mothers were recorded in dilatation of 4 to7 cm for an hour. In this way, F/R ratio which means the time that a contraction needs to return from its peak to baseline (Fall) divided to the time for a contraction to rise to its peak (Rise) was calculated. All of the participants were followed until delivery, vaginal delivery or caesarean section. RESULTS: Mean and standard deviation of fall to raise ratio was 1.54±0.26 in mothers with vaginal delivery versus 1.74±0.21 for others underwent caesarean section (OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.005- 0.42, P < 0.001). Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values (positive and negative) of mentioned ratio were 68.32%, 70.01%, 69.55%, and 68.91%, respectively. CONCLUSION: By considering acceptable predictive value of uterine contractions' pattern in the active phase of labor, it could help to timely diagnosis of failure to progress and consequently suitable intervention which probably maintain better health of both mother and fetus.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".