A comparative study of neonatal outcomes in placenta previa versus cesarean for other indication at term
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Currently, no ACOG guidelines address the issue of the optimal timing of delivery in placenta previa. Though there is an increased risk of neonatal morbidity and mortality when electively delivered preterm, it is unclear whether adverse neonatal outcomes exist when these pregnancies make it beyond term. By comparing neonatal outcomes amongst pregnancies with placenta previa versus those from cesarean for another indication at term, the objective of this study was to determine whether placenta previa is an independent risk factor for adverse neonatal outcomes at term. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort-study using the CDC's Linked Birth-Infant Death data from the United States. The effect of placenta previa on the risk of adverse neonatal outcomes was estimated using unconditional logistic regression analysis, adjusting for relevant confounders. RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 3,550,842 deliveries meeting inclusion criteria. The incidence of placenta previa at term was 1.3/1000 (n = 4,492), accounting for 40.6% of all previa cases. Relative to cesareans for other indications, pregnancies with placenta previa had an increased risk of IUGR 3.20 [2.50-4.10], SGA 2.70 [2.45-2.97], respiratory distress 3.82 [2.91-5.00], prolonged ventilation 3.41 [2.70-4.32] and neonatal anemia 6.87 [4.43-10.65]. Rates of meconium aspiration syndrome, seizures, birth injury and overall infant mortality do not appear to be affected by this condition. CONCLUSION: Relative to cesareans for other indications, placenta previa is associated with increased morbidity, but not mortality, at term. This information might be helpful in the development of future guidelines, which are currently needed to guide and standardize clinical practice regarding the optimal timing of delivery in placenta previa.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".