Primary Post-Partum Haemorrhage; the Pilgrim Hospital’s Experience, Boston, Lincolnshire, United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: This study was to investigate the incidence of primary post-partum haemorrhage (PPH), during the biennial period of 2007 to 2008; its management and outcomes and to learn from any peculiar challenges that the unit had faced in the management of these women in relation to PPH.The study was aimed to explore any significant risk factors, adverse outcomes and associated risks and compared these with standards, guidelines and other published acceptable practices.It was also aimed to critically appraise our methods of estimation of blood loss (EBL, blood loss) in the unit. Methods:We reviewed the Pilgrim Hospital Monthly Maternity Statistical Run from 2005 to 2008 for information on trends.We conducted a preliminary review of the Birth Register of 2007-8 with elimination criteria from the definition of primary postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), to identify the target population to be included in the study.Once the target population was identified, the investigators chose a study population of 100 of these women and had used a systematic approach to make sure that the study population clearly reflected with good precision, the target population.This was done as follows:Each of the 4 investigators had a group of 25 women to study and each group comprised of 8 women who had normal birth; 8 women who had vaginal operative deliveries; 8 women who had caesarean section and one additional woman with a mode of delivery randomly picked by each of the investigators but with this randomly picked mode of delivery different from that picked by the 3 other investigators.A careful review of 100 case notes was conducted in stages by investigators to ascertain the management these women and the Obstetrics & Gynecology International Journal Research ArticleOpen Access outcomes of such management.The investigators met formally about three times and informally many times to articulate, review, updated and implement the strategies for the study.Results: From the preliminary screening the following specific data was collated data: i.The number of deliveries for 2007 was 1963 and that of 2008 was 2169.ii.The total number of deliveries for the same period was 4132.The number of women delivered whose blood loss met the criteria for PPH were 390 or giving rise to an incidence of 9.44% (cf 2-11%) for the 2 years (2007-2008) or average incidence of 4.72% (cf 2-11%) for each of the 2 years.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".