Re‐Conceptualizing the Hospital Labor Room: The PLACE (Pregnant and Laboring in an Ambient Clinical Environment) Pilot Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nearly all hospitalized laboring women spend most of the time in bed. We made simple but radical modifications to a hospital labor room, which included the removal of the standard hospital bed and the addition of equipment to promote relaxation, mobility, and calm. We designed a pilot study, the objectives of which were to test the feasibility of a randomized trial and the acceptability of the modified labor room to women and their care providers. METHODS: Women were assessed and invited to participate just before their admission to the labor and delivery suite. Sixty-two women at two Toronto teaching hospitals were randomly allocated to either the standard labor room or the "ambient room." Data about labor and birth events were abstracted from the medical records. Participants and their nurses and physicians completed questionnaires to elicit their views of their experiences with the labor rooms. RESULTS: Women's and practitioners' evaluations of the ambient room were generally very positive. Nineteen women (65.5%) in the ambient group, compared with 4 (13.3%) in the standard group, reported spending 50 percent or less of their hospital labor in the standard labor bed. Twelve women allocated to the ambient room had artificial oxytocin infusions, compared with 21 allocated to the standard room (X (2) = 4.73, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: We conclude that the ambient labor room should be evaluated in an adequately powered randomized controlled trial.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".