Clinical Significance of Deliveries With Uterine Fundal Pressure Maneuver at a Single Perinatal Center in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We examined the patient characteristics and obstetrical outcomes of deliveries with uterine fundal pressure maneuver (UFPM) to identify their clinical significance at a single perinatal center in Japan. Methods: Subjects were women with vertex singleton pregnancy who delivered at Japanese Red Cross Katsushika Maternity Hospital between April 2008 and September 2012. Results: A total of 6,317 cases were evaluated for the statistical analyses. Of these, UFPM was performed in 634 cases (10.0%). Using multiple logistic regression, UFPM was independently associated with nulliparity (P < 0.001), presence of oligohydramnios (P = 0.023), non-reassuring fetal status (P < 0.001), oxytocin use (P < 0.001), vacuum extraction (P < 0.001), Cesarean delivery (P = 0.021), postpartum hemorrhage (P < 0.001), mid-lateral episiotomy (P < 0.001), third-degree perineal laceration (P = 0.0042) and cervical laceration (P = 0.022). Conclusion: UFPM remains a controversial maneuver. Therefore, the physician should make the decision about the appropriate use of UFPM based on the patient ’ s individual clinical circumstances. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/jcgo87w
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".