MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Maternal and perinatal morbidity of caesarean delivery at full cervical dilatation compared with caesarean delivery in the first stage of labour

2005· article· en· W2069635991 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria M. Allen, Colleen O’Connell, Thomas F. Baskett

Bibliographic record

VenueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsCaesarean deliveryAsphyxiaVaginal deliveryCaesarean sectionCervical dilatationGestationUterine rupturePopulationPregnancyStage (stratigraphy)Perinatal asphyxiaGynecologyCervixUterus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To estimate maternal and perinatal morbidity associated with caesarean delivery at full cervical dilatation, a population-based cohort study from 1997 to 2002 was used, which included 1623 nullipara with singleton pregnancies at 37-42 weeks of gestation requiring caesarean delivery in labour. Compared to caesarean delivery at less than full dilatation, women undergoing caesarean delivery at full dilatation were more likely to have complications of intraoperative trauma (RR 2.6, P < 0.001) and infants with perinatal asphyxia (RR 1.5, P < 0.05). There was no difference in maternal or perinatal morbidity when duration of the second stage of labour or when failed assisted vaginal delivery was considered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations192
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & GynaecologySame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207