Survey of Pregnancy Outcome in Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes with Amniotic Fluid Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) is among the most important causes of perinatal morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study is to survey the pregnancy outcomes in preterm premature rupture of membranes with an amniotic fluid index of <5 and >5. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was performed on 137 pregnant women complicated by preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) with a gestational age of 28-34 weeks during October 2006 to October 2008. The patients were divided in two groups according to their amniotic fluid index; AFI<5 (77cases), AFI≥5 (60cases). The Chi-squared test for qualitative variables and T-student test for quantitative variables were used to analyze the results. RESULTS: The results showed that there was no significant difference in terms of the number of pregnancies, gestational age at rupture of membranes and birthweight between the two groups. However, the results demonstrated that the patients with AFI<5 exhibited a significantly shorter latency period (p=0.049), a higher rate of cesarean due to fetal distress (p=0.008), a lower neonatal Apgar score in the first minute (p=0.0127) and a higher rate of neonatal death during the first week (p=0.045). CONCLUSION: Overall, PPROM with oligohydroamnios is associated with shorter latency, higher rate of C/S, higher rate of early neonatal death and lower neonatal Apgar.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".