MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170068017 · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13007

Using inter‐institutional practice variation to understand the risks and benefits of routine labour induction at 41<sup>+0</sup> weeks

2014· article· en· W2170068017 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jennifer A. Hutcheon, Sam Harper, EC Strumpf, L Lee, Gérald P. Marquette

Bibliographic record

VenueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsProvincial Health Services AuthorityMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineApgar scoreObstetricsGestationInstrumental variableCaesarean sectionPregnancyNeonatal intensive care unitLabor inductionPopulationCaesarean deliveryBirth weightPediatricsEconomicsEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risks and benefits of routine labour induction at 41(+0) weeks' gestation for mother and newborn. DESIGN: Population-based retrospective cohort study of inter-institutional variation in labour induction practices for women at or beyond 41(+0) weeks' gestation. POPULATION: Women in British Columbia, Canada, who remained pregnant ≥41(+0) weeks and delivered at one of the province's 42 hospitals with >50 annual deliveries, 2008-2012 (n = 14,627). METHODS: The proportion of women remaining pregnant a week or more past the expected delivery date who were induced at 41(+0) or 41(+1) weeks' gestation for an indication of 'post-dates' was calculated for each institution. We used instrumental variable analysis (using the institutional rate of labour induction at 41(+0) weeks as the instrument) to estimate the effect of labour induction on maternal and neonatal health outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Caesarean delivery, instrumental delivery, post-partum haemorrhage, 3rd or 4th degree lacerations, macrosomia, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and 5-minute Apgar score <7. RESULTS: Institutional rates of labour induction at 41(+0) weeks ranged from 14.3 to 46%. Institutions with higher (≥30%) and average (20-29.9%) induction rates did not have significantly different rates of caesarean delivery, instrumental delivery, or other maternal or neonatal outcomes than institutions with lower induction rates (<20%). Instrumental variable analyses also demonstrated no significantly increased (or decreased) risk of caesarean delivery (0.69 excess cases per 100 pregnancies [95% CI -10.1, 11.5]), instrumental delivery (8.9 per 100 [95% CI -2.3, 20.2]), or other maternal or neonatal outcomes in women who were induced (versus not induced). CONCLUSIONS: Within the current range of clinical practice, there was no evidence that differential use of routine induction at 41(+0) weeks affected maternal or neonatal health outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & GynaecologySame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207