Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The object of this study was to determine factors leading to episiotomy in low-risk vaginal deliveries, including a comparison of family physicians with obstetricians. The research was also to assess the incidence of episiotomy in a large community hospital and compare it with a national rate of 40%. METHODS: A retrospective cohort design was used with computerized records from one hospital. Demographic and clinical information was extracted from the database, including parity, age, physician type, anesthesia, induction, fetal complications, and other factors. Only low-risk vaginal deliveries (n = 3120) from the year 2003 were included. RESULTS: There was an overall episiotomy incidence of 48%; obstetricians performed episiotomy in 54% of their low-risk patients and family physicians in 33% of similar women (P < .001). Adjusted for multiple factors, the odds ratio for obstetricians performing episiotomy was 2.38 [1.98 to 2.87 (95% confidence interval (CI))]. Instrument-assisted delivery was the strongest predictor for episiotomy, with an adjusted odds ratio for forceps of 5.08 [3.75 to 6.88 CI], and vacuum 2.86 [1.78 to 4.58 CI]. CONCLUSION: Episiotomy in this hospital is being performed in almost half of all vaginal births. Obstetricians are more than twice as likely to perform episiotomy as family physicians in similar patients. Instrument-assisted delivery is a strong risk factor for episiotomy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".