MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reducing Primary Cesarean Delivery Rate

2016· article· en· W2386826115 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emily Lombard, Vanessa Archil

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCesarean deliverySingletonSection (typography)Quarter (Canadian coin)ObstetricsPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: With increasing rates of cesarean sections throughout the country, the importance of preventing them has become a priority to all physicians. After the Consensus report by ACOG and the Society for MFM was published in March, 2014, we decided to utilize the recommendations in our labor and delivery department to attempt to reduce our Nulliparous, Term, Singleton, Vertex (NTSV) cesarean delivery rate over a one year time period. Our NTSV cesarean section rate in 2013 was 35%. Our benchmark was set at less than 24%. METHODS: 1) Recommendations and were made to the entire department regarding appropriate management of the first and second stages of labor. 2) Guidelines were set for elective inductions of labor between 39 0/7 weeks and 41 0/7 weeks to only allow those with bishop scores greater than 8. 3) Departmental and individual provider NTSV rates were shared with all physicians in an un-blinded fashion on a quarterly basis. RESULTS: Over a one-year time period we were able to reduce our NTSV cesarean section rates from 35% to 29.4%. Our second quarter of this year was 28.7%. CONCLUSION: While we have yet to reach our benchmark, we were able to decrease our NTSV cesarean section rates by over 5% in a one-year period. We continue to evaluate our procedures and educate our clinicians in an effort toward decreasing our NTSV cesarean section rate.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrics and GynecologySame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207