Comparison of Maternal and Infant Outcomes between Vacuum Extraction and Forceps Deliveries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors conducted a population-based historical cohort study in the Canadian province of Quebec to assess the maternal and infant outcomes associated with vacuum extraction and forceps deliveries. The study database contains information on 305,391 mother-infant dyads (linked by a common institutional code and hospital chart number) for singleton live vaginal births with a nonbreech presentation at the gestational age of 37 or more completed weeks and a birth weight between 2,500 and 4,000 g during fiscal years 1991/1992 to 1995/1996. Of the births, 31,015 were delivered by vacuum extraction, and 18,727 were delivered by forceps. Compared with delivery by forceps, the adjusted risk ratios for third-/fourth-degree perineal laceration, intracranial hemorrhage, subdural or cerebral hemorrhage, intraventricular hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, cephalhematoma, and neonatal in-hospital death were 0.48 (95% confidence interval: 0.45, 0.50), 1.28 (95% confidence interval: 0.73, 2.25), 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.49, 1.93), 0.99 (95% confidence interval: 0.16, 5.97), 5.44 (confidence interval: 1.26, 23.43), 2.02 (95% confidence interval: 1.89, 2.16), and 0.93 (95% confidence interval: 0.32, 2.70), respectively. The authors conclude that vacuum extraction causes less maternal trauma but may increase the risk of cephalhematoma and certain types of intracranial hemorrhage (e.g., subarachnoid hemorrhage).
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".