Once More Unto the Breech
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides a knowledge-based assessment of planned cesarean delivery compared with planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term gestation. The most critical evidence on this issue is the intention-to-treat analysis from the Term Breech Trial, which showed that planned cesarean delivery reduced composite perinatal death and serious neonatal morbidity. Although there was no difference in composite death or neurodevelopmental delay at 2 years of age, this finding was based on only 44% of randomized patients and was not an analysis by intention to treat. On the other hand, the design of the nonexperimental Presentation et Mode d'Accouchement: presentation and mode of delivery (PREMODA) study (which showed no difference in composite perinatal mortality or morbidity after planned cesarean delivery compared with planned vaginal delivery), likely favored the planned vaginal delivery group; lack of exclusion criteria led to higher risk women (with contraindications to vaginal delivery) being included in the planned cesarean delivery group. Such selection bias notwithstanding, both the Term Breech Trial and the PREMODA study showed significantly higher rates of 5-minute Apgar score less than 4, 5-minute Apgar score less than 7, intubation, and birth trauma in the planned vaginal delivery group. Finally, studies from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Canada have shown that increases in planned cesarean delivery after the Term Breech Trial led to improved neonatal outcomes. Nevertheless, planned vaginal delivery continues to be associated with higher rates of adverse perinatal outcomes in these countries. The totality of the evidence therefore unequivocally shows the relatively greater safety of planned cesarean delivery for breech presentation at term gestation.
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 | 0.014 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".