Outcomes after vacuum-assisted deliveries. Births attended by community family practitioners.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess success rates, modes of delivery following failure, complications of mothers and newborns, and effect of extractor station and parity on vacuum-assisted deliveries attended by family physicians. DESIGN: Retrospective audit. SETTING: Community hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-five family physicians providing maternity care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Complications, parity, and extractor station of 153 vacuum-assisted deliveries from April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2003. RESULTS: Family physicians attempted 153 vacuum deliveries (82 at low station, 71 at outlet station) and had a 94.1% success rate. Of nine failed vacuum deliveries (eight at low station and one at outlet station), four were subsequently delivered by forceps and five by cesarean section. Except for one case of subdural hematoma, complications were few. Nulliparity was associated with six of the nine failed vacuum deliveries. CONCLUSION: Family physicians were usually successful with vacuum-assisted deliveries. Complications were infrequent and rapidly resolved, but one failure, which was followed by a failed forceps delivery and eventual cesarean section, resulted in a serious complication. Low station and nulliparity were associated with failure of vacuum-assisted deliveries.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".