Neonatal outcomes of preterm infants in breech presentation according to mode of birth in Canadian NICUs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many medical practitioners have adopted the practice of caesarean section for preterm infants in breech presentation based on term infant data. Some studies have highlighted deleterious effects on survival, such as intraventricular haemorrhage and periventricular leucomalacia, while others have reported no difference from the outcomes after vaginal delivery. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of preterm infants of ≤32 weeks' gestational age who were in breech position at the time of birth according to mode of birth in Canadian neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). SETTINGS: 29 Canadian NICUs. DESIGN: Neonates admitted to participating NICUs in the Canadian Neonatal Network between 2003 and 2007 were included in this retrospective study. Infants who were in breech position at the time of birth were divided into two groups: vaginal birth (VB) and caesarean section (CS). Data on common neonatal outcomes were compared using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Neonatal mortality and other neonatal morbidities. RESULTS: Of 3552 preterm infants in breech position at birth, 2937 (83%) were delivered by CS and 615 (17%) by VB. Multivariate regression analysis with adjustment for perinatal risk factors indicated that VB was associated with an increased risk of death (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.3 to 2.3), chronic lung disease (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.9) and severe retinopathy of prematurity (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.3). CONCLUSION: Vaginal birth for preterm infants in breech presentation is possibly associated with a higher risk of adverse neonatal outcomes compared with caesarean birth in Canadian NICUs. It is not clear whether adverse outcomes are due to the mode of delivery or whether breech birth is associated with other risk factors, an issue that can only be resolved by a randomised controlled trial.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".