Does the presence of learners affect family medicine obstetric outcomes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare patient outcomes and complications before and after involvement of family medicine residents in intrapartum care. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis. SETTING: London, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Obstetric patients of a family physician with a special interest in obstetrics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total number of births attended and births missed, as well as rates of inductions, augmentations for dystocia, augmentations for prelabour ruptured membranes, types of births (ie, normal vaginal, vacuum-assisted, low and outlet forceps deliveries; cesarean sections; and obstetrician-assisted vaginal births), and perineal outcomes (ie, intact; first-, second-, third-, or fourth-degree tears; episiotomies; and episiotomies with third-or fourth-degree extensions). RESULTS: During the period of time when family medicine residents were involved in intrapartum care, women sustained slightly more second-degree tears, and more cesarean sections were performed. Fewer women had vacuum-assisted births or unmedicated births. There were no significant differences in rates of normal vaginal births, low and outlet forceps deliveries, and perineal trauma (other than second-degree tears) including episiotomies. CONCLUSION: Women experienced slightly more second-degree tears when residents were involved in their deliveries. The increased number of second-degree tears might be because of residents' limited experience in providing intrapartum care. More important, there was no increase in other serious perineal trauma or episiotomy when residents provided supervised intrapartum care. This should reassure women and family practice obstetricians who choose to receive and provide obstetric care in a family practice teaching unit. The increase in rates of epidural use and cesarean sections and the decrease in rates of vacuum-assisted births reflect obstetric trends in Canada over the past decade.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".