MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114939488 · doi:10.1136/ebm.12.6.174

Induction of labour post-term or expectant management with serial fetal monitoring had similar neonatal outcomes

2007· letter· en· W2114939488 on OpenAlexaff
Shu Qin Wei, William D. Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpectant managementInduction of laborTerm (time)ObstetricsMedicineFetusFetal monitoringPreterm laborPregnancyGestationPhysicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In women with a post-term pregnancy, does induction of labour improve neonatal outcomes more than expectant management? Heimstad R, Skogvoll E, Mattsson LA, et al . Induction of labor or serial antenatal fetal monitoring in postterm pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109 :609–17. Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Obstetrics ★★★★★★⋆ Obstetrics ★★★★★★⋆ ### ![Graphic][1] Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][2] Allocation: {concealed}*.† ### ![Graphic][3] Blinding: unblinded.† ### ![Graphic][4] Follow-up period: to 1 week after delivery or hospital discharge. ### ![Graphic][5] Setting: university hospital in Trondheim, Norway. ### ![Graphic][6] Patients: 508 women (mean age 30 y) carrying a singleton pregnancy with cephalic presentation and no prelabour rupture of membranes at 289 days gestation (41wk and 2 d). ### ![Graphic][7] Intervention: immediate induction of labour (n = 254) or expectant management with fetal monitoring every 3 days until spontaneous … [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [2]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Not applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Commentary

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207