Feasibility of a randomized controlled trial testing nifedipine vs. placebo for the treatment of preterm labor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Nifedipine is believed to be a superior tocolytic agent on the basis of efficacy and side-effect profile, but was never prospectively evaluated in a placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial (RCT). In our study, we sought to identify limitations in participation for a would-be RCT comparing nifedipine to placebo. METHODS: A prospective feasibility study was conducted at Ste-Justine Hospital, a tertiary care center, on women between 24 and 34 weeks' gestation, presenting to the labor and delivery room with obstetrical complaints. Patient information was collected and would-be participants were identified on the basis of pre-established clinical and ultrasound criteria as well as on willingness to participate, as determined by the study research nurse. RESULTS: During a 6-month period, 483 women presenting with signs and symptoms of preterm labor (PTL) were eligible for further evaluation. A total of 321 (66.5%) women were excluded for obstetrical and medical reasons whereas 125 (25.9%) did not meet strict inclusion criteria (cervical length <25 mm or positive fetal fibronectin). When using strict criteria, only 37 women (7.6%) were found to be eligible for study participation. Subject willingness to participate as assessed by the research nurse was 50%. CONCLUSIONS: If adhering to strict inclusion/exclusion criteria, the feasibility of an appropriately sampled RCT testing tocolytic therapy against a placebo would require a large concerted multicenter effort to meet sample size demands.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".