Active management of the third stage of labour: Prevention and treatment of postpartum hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To review the clinical aspects of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) and provide guidelines to assist clinicians in the prevention and management of PPH. These guidelines are an update from the previous Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) clinical practice guideline on PPH, published in April 2000. Evidence Medline, PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ACP Journal Club, and BMJ Clinical Evidence were searched for relevant articles, with concentration on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines published between 1995 and 2007. Each article was screened for relevance and the full text acquired if determined to be relevant. Each full‐text article was critically appraised with use of the Jadad Scale and the levels of evidence definitions of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Values The quality of evidence was rated with use of the criteria described by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Sponsor The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".