MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108204209 · doi:10.3109/14767058.2012.695819

Early versus late amniotomy for labour induction: a randomized controlled trial

2012· article· en· W2108204209 on OpenAlexaff
Karine Gagnon-Gervais, Emmanuel Bujold, Marie-Hélène Iglesias, Louise Duperron, André Masse, Marie‐Hélène Mayrand, A Sansregret, William D. Fraser, François Audibert

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOxytocinObstetricsRandomizationRandomized controlled trialLabor inductionParity (physics)GynecologyPregnancyConfidence intervalInduction of laborSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of early vs. late amniotomy on delivery mode in women undergoing induction of labor. STUDY DESIGN: 143 women admitted for induction were randomized to early amniotomy (EA, concomitant with the beginning of oxytocin infusion; n = 71) or to late amniotomy (LA, four hours after the beginning of oxytocin; n = 72). Randomization was stratified by parity. The primary outcome was the rate of cesarean. Secondary outcomes were duration of labor and intrapartum fever. RESULTS: The cesarean rate was similar between groups (18% vs. 17% among nulliparous; and 3% vs. 0% among parous women, in EA and LA group, respectively). However, EA was associated with shorter oxytocin-to-delivery interval (12 vs. 15 h) and a non-significant decrease in intrapartum fever (3% vs. 25%) than LA in nulliparous women (p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: For women undergoing oxytocin induction, early amniotomy is associated with shorter labor in nulliparous women with no effect on the risk of cesarean section in both nulliparous and multiparous women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations28
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal MedicineSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207