Labor induction and augmentation in women with multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fatigue and pelvic organ dysfunction are common among women with multiple sclerosis (MS), which may prolong labor and increase the risk of labor induction and/or augmentation. OBJECTIVE: We set out to investigate the association between MS and related clinical factors (disease duration and the Expanded Disability Status Scale, EDSS) with labor induction/augmentation. METHODS: Data from the British Columbia (BC) MS database were linked with the BC Perinatal Database Registry. Multivariable models were used to compare the likelihood of labor induction and augmentation between attempted vaginal deliveries (1998-2009) in women with MS (n=381) and the general population (n=2615). RESULTS: In the MS cohort, 94/381 deliveries (25%) required labor induction and 147/381 deliveries (39%) required labor augmentation. Having MS was not associated with labor induction (adjusted odds ratio (OR)=0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.68-1.22, p=0.54) or augmentation (adjusted OR=0.91; 95% CI=0.72-1.15, p=0.43), but was associated with multiple methods of labor induction (OR=1.94; 95% CI=1.23-3.06, p=0.004). A higher EDSS score was associated with an increased risk of labor induction (adjusted p=0.04), but not labor augmentation (adjusted p > 0.5). Disease duration was not associated with either outcome (adjusted p > 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Greater intervention may be required to initiate labor for women with a higher degree of disability due to MS.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".