Emergency Cerclage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: This article reviews the use and effectiveness of emergency cerclage for women who present with a dilated cervix in the second trimester of pregnancy and seeks to identify predictors of favorable emergency cerclage outcomes. We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library for the period January 1995 to April 2012 and used the terms "emergency cerclage," "emergency stitch," "rescue cerclage," and "rescue stitch." Thirty-four studies in which transvaginal emergency cervical cerclage was performed in women with a dilated cervix were identified and included. Predictors of poor outcome were prolapsed membranes, evidence of intra-amniotic or systemic infection, symptomatic presentation, cervical dilatation greater than 3 cm, or cerclage after 22 weeks. According to observational and limited randomized controlled trials, the cerclage group did significantly better than the bed-rest group in mean randomization-to-delivery interval, preterm delivery before 34 weeks, and compound neonatal morbidity. The current data suggest that emergency cerclage is associated with a longer latency period and, most often, with better pregnancy outcomes when compared with bed rest. Many of the predictors of adverse outcomes appear to be associated with evidence of inflammation or infection. TARGET AUDIENCE: Obstetricians and gynecologists, family physicians LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After completing this CME activity, physicians should be better able to review the use and evaluate the effectiveness of emergency cerclage for women who present with a dilated cervix in the second trimester, to identify predictors of favorable emergency cerclage outcomes, and to compare emergency cerclage versus bed rest.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
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".