The risk of unexplained antepartum stillbirth in second pregnancies following caesarean section in the first pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if a previous caesarean section increases the risk of unexplained antepartum stillbirth in second pregnancies. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Large Canadian perinatal database. POPULATION: 158 502 second births. METHODS: Data were obtained from a large perinatal database, which supplied data on demographics, pregnancy complications, maternal medical conditions, previous caesarean section and pregnancy outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total and unexplained stillbirth. RESULTS: The antepartum stillbirth rate was 3.0/1000 in the previous caesarean section group compared with 2.7/1000 in the previous vaginal delivery group (P= 0.46). Multivariate logistic regression modelling, including terms for maternal age (polynomial), weight >91 kg, smoking during pregnancy, pre-pregnancy hypertension and diabetes, did not document an association between previous caesarean section and unexplained antepartum stillbirth (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.92-1.77). CONCLUSION: Caesarean section in the first birth does not increase the risk of unexplained antepartum stillbirth in second pregnancies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".