Predictors of cesarean section following elective post-dates induction of labor in nullipara with uncomplicated singleton vertex pregnancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although post-dates is among the most common indications for induction of labor, no studies have identified the predictors of cesarean section (C/S) in that population. The high cesarean rate in our institution for this group of women triggered us to assess different induction practices to elicit potential causes. METHODS: We conducted a hospital-based retrospective cohort analysis using chart reviews of all nullipara women with induced labor at the Children's and Women's Health Centre of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, during the 2-year period, April 1998 to March 2000. The C/S rate was compared among 3 groups of women who were divided according to their induction method. RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-nine women meeting the inclusion criteria were induced. Of the 25 women who received oxytocin ideally and the 111 women who did not, 7 (28%) and 53 (48%) were delivered by C/S, (x2=3.228 p=0.07; relative risks 0.59 [95% confidence interval 0.30, 1.13]). A significantly lower C/S rate (x2=21.9, p<0.0005) was found among women induced with prostaglandin (PG) alone (19.4%) compared with those induced with PG and oxytocin, whether oxytocin was given ideally (38.3%) or not ideally (45.4%). Of women who received oxytocin, there was no difference in chorioamnionitis (x2=0.485, p=0.49) between those who had an early membrane rupture (with or pre-oxytocin, 22.4%) and those who had membrane rupture following a period of oxytocin infusion (18.5%). CONCLUSION: The need for oxytocin or less than 2 doses of PG is associated with increased risk of C/S. Whether oxytocin was given according to protocol (ideally) or not, made no difference to the C/S risk in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".