Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: External cephalic version (ECV) is often denied due to fear of complications and pain during this procedure. The aim of this study was to assess maternal pain perception during ECV and to report the incidence of complications associated with this procedure. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Hospital of Merciful Brothers, Brno. METHODS: Study included 110 women undergoing ECV. Pain was measured by visual analog scale (VAS) and descriptive part of Czech version of McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). The overall pain rating index (PRI) and PRI of sensoric (S), affective (A), evaluating (E) and miscellaneuos (M) descriptors of pain was assesed. The assesment was performed in all patient and group of successful and failed ECV was compared by t-test. All complications during ECV were recorded. Incidence of operative deliveries after successful ECV was compared with control group included parturients with cephalic presentantion by odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). RESULTS: Forty two ECV (38%) was successful. Mean value of VAS was 4.9, PRI 14.4 (SD = 1.9). PRI of particular qualities of pain: S = 8.0, A = 1.9, E = 2.6, M = 2.1. The significant diference between successful and failed ECV group was in VAS (4.2 vs 5.4, p = 0.001), PRI -A (1.3 vs 2.2, p = 0.018) and PRI-M (1.5 vs 2.5, p = 0.015). We recorded 2 (1.8%) cases of transient fetal bradycardia, 8 ECV (7%) was discontinued for pain and in 52% women after ECV transient decrease in fetal heart rate variability occured. No serious complication was recorded. The incidence of caesarean section after successful ECV was 21% and in control group 16% (OR 1.4 95%.CI 0.62; 3.01). Incidence of instrumental delivery after ECV was 12%, in control group 5% (OR 2.7 95% CI 0.93; 7.27). CONCLUSION: The pain during ECV was mild and well tolareted. The incidence of complications was small and the most of them were not serious. In this study no reasons for denying ECV were found.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".