Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence and timing of excessive uterine activity accompanying induction of labor with misoprostol using different routes (oral or vaginal) and forms (intact tablet or crushed) and to compare these with dinoprostone gel, oxytocin, and spontaneous labor. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 519 women at term who had labor induced and 86 women at term in spontaneous labor. Induction agents included misoprostol, dinoprostone, or oxytocin. Fetal heart rate and uterine activity tracings were analyzed independently by three maternal-fetal medicine physicians. The diagnosis of tachysystole or hyperstimulation required the agreement of two or more reviewers. RESULTS: The incidence of tachysystole was highest with misoprostol administered by vaginal tablet (misoprostol vaginal tablet 50 microg every 4 hours, 48.6%; vaginal tablet crushed 50 microg and suspended in hydroxyethyl gel every 4 hours, 30.7%, P =.009; oral tablet 50 microg every 4 hours, 22.2%, P =.001; oral tablet crushed 50 microg every 4 hours, 15.5%, P <.001; dinoprostone gel, 33.0%, P =.022; intravenous oxytocin, 30.2%, P =.027; and spontaneous onset of labor, 23.3%, P <.001). Hyperstimulation occurred more often with dinoprostone gel (16.5%) than with other forms of induction or spontaneous labor. Hyperstimulation occurred significantly more often with vaginal misoprostol crushed tablet (7.9%) and vaginal misoprostol intact tablet (7.6%) than with crushed oral misoprostol (1.0%) (P =.016 and.018, respectively). There was a shorter time to tachysystole with increasing doses of vaginal misoprostol tablet (P =.01). CONCLUSION: The incidence of tachysystole and hyperstimulation, and time to tachysystole, varied depending on the route and form of misoprostol given.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".