Labour and delivery interventions in women with intellectual and developmental disabilities: a population-based cohort study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our objectives were to: (1) examine the occurrence of labour induction, caesarean section, and operative vaginal delivery in women with intellectual and developmental disabilities compared to those without and (2) determine whether pre-pregnancy health conditions and pregnancy complications explain any elevated occurrence of these interventions. METHODS: We conducted a population-based study using linked Ontario (Canada) administrative data. We identified deliveries to women with (N=3932) and without (N=382,774) intellectual and developmental disabilities (2002-2011). Modified Poisson regression was used to estimate adjusted relative risks (aRR) and 95% CIs for interventions, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. We used generalised estimating equations to determine whether pre-pregnancy health conditions and pregnancy complications explained any statistically significantly elevated aRRs. RESULTS: After controlling for socio-demographic characteristics, women with intellectual and developmental disabilities were more likely to have labour inductions (aRR, 1.13; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.20) and caesarean sections (aRR, 1.09; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16) but not operative vaginal deliveries, compared to the referent group. Pre-pregnancy health conditions explained 12.9% of their elevated aRR for labour induction. Pre-pregnancy health conditions and maternal complications explained 27.8% and 13.3%, respectively, of their elevated aRR for caesarean section. CONCLUSIONS: Women with intellectual and developmental disabilities are slightly more likely to have labour inductions and caesarean sections than women without intellectual and developmental disabilities. The elevated occurrence of these interventions is not fully explained by their pre-pregnancy health conditions or pregnancy complications. Non-medical issues should be evaluated for their influence on the timing of labour and delivery 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.
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 | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it