The Effects of an External Nasal Dilator on Labor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of an external nasal dilator on several variables characterizing labor in both mother and fetus. METHODS: One hundred and fifty primigravida women in active labor were randomized to wear, throughout labor, either a dilator spring-loaded nasal strip or a placebo device. Data were obtained during labor and compared between the groups. After delivery, the satisfaction rate was assessed. RESULTS: No differences were found between the study and the control group regarding rate of induction or augmentation of labor as well as Montevideo units reached, frequency of rupture of membranes, duration of the active phase and second stage of labor, usage of epidural analgesia, normal fetal heart pattern, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, and neonatal well being. Length of maternal and neonatal hospitalization also did not differ between the groups. Satisfaction rate was significantly higher in parturient women wearing nasal strips with a dilator spring than in parturient women wearing a placebo spring (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Nasal strips do not change the course but ameliorate the quality of labor by improving the ease of breathing. Nasal dilators sustain the respiratory effort associated with the long process of labor and may control the switch from nasal to oronasal breathing during delivery.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".