MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050164699 · doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.12.017

Predictors of emergency cesarean delivery among international migrant women in Canada

2013· article· en· W2050164699 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anita J. Gagnon, Lisa Merry, Kristen R. Haase

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioConfidence intervalCesarean deliveryLogistic regressionDemographyImmigrationRefugeeObstetricsPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the predictors of emergency cesarean delivery among international migrant women. METHODS: Between February 2006 and May 2009, 1025 postpartum migrant women were recruited from 12 hospitals in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. Logistic regression was used to model migration, social, health service, and biomedical factors predictive of emergency cesarean. RESULTS: Overall, 14% percent of participants underwent emergency cesarean. The greatest risk was for women having their first delivery (odds ratio [OR], 5.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1-11.3); newborns weighing 4000g or more (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.9-6.5); no health insurance (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-6.4); delivery on a Friday (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-3.9); incomes of less than 30 000 Canadian dollars (OR, 1.9; 1.2-3.0); and induced labor (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0). Compared with immigrants, asylum seekers (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.6) and refugees (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2-1.0) were protected against emergency cesarean. CONCLUSION: Indicators specific to, or more common among, migrants were informative in assessing the likelihood of emergency cesarean. The risk associated with being uninsured, day of delivery, income, and immigration class suggests the importance of considering non-biomedical factors in reducing the need for emergency cesarean among migrants.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207