Prelabor rupture of the membranes at term: expectant management at home or in hospital?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether adverse effects of expectant management for premature rupture of membranes (PROM) at term and patient satisfaction were greater if women were managed at home rather than in a hospital. METHODS: We undertook a secondary analysis of data from the International TermPROM Study for women managed expectantly at home or in a hospital. Using multiple logistic regression analyses, we determined the effect of home and hospital management and controlled for differences in baseline characteristics, in measures of maternal and neonatal infections and rates of cesarean. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-three women (39.1%) were managed at home, and 1017 (60.9%) in a hospital. Management at home, compared with in a hospital, increased risk of nulliparas needing antibiotics before delivery (odds ratio [OR] 1.52 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04, 2.24, P =.03), those not colonized with group B streptococcus having cesareans (OR 1.48 95% CI 1.03, 2. 14, P =.04), and neonatal infections (OR 1.97 95% CI 1.00, 3.90, P =. 05). More multiparas managed at home said they would participate in the study again (OR 1.80 95% CI 1.27, 2.54, P <.001). CONCLUSION: Expectant management at home, rather than in a hospital, might increase the likelihood of some adverse outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".