The natural history of preterm premature rupture of membranes in twin pregnancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the characteristics of preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) between twin and singleton pregnancies. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of all women with twin and singleton pregnancies admitted with PPROM between 24-34 weeks of gestation. RESULTS: Overall 698 women with PPROM were eligible for the study: 101 (14.5%) twins and 597 (85.5%) singletons. Twins presented with PPROM at a more advanced gestational age compared with singletons (29.1 ± 2.7 vs. 28.5 ± 2.8 weeks, p = 0.03). The latency period was shorter in twins compared with singletons, especially for women presenting after 28 weeks of gestation (5.0 ± 0.8 vs. 7.0 ± 0.4 days, p = 0.01). Women with twins were more likely to deliver within 48 h (OR: 2.7; 95%CI: 1.7-4.2) and were less likely to deliver within 2-7 days (OR: 0.5; 95%CI: 0.3-0.9) following PPROM. The rate of clinical chorioamnionitis or placental abruption following PPROM was lower in twins compared with singletons (15.8% vs. 26.0%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: PPROM in twin pregnancies tends to occur at a more advanced gestational age, is associated with a shorter latency period and is less likely to be complicated by chorioamnionitis or placental abruption compared with singletons. This information may be useful for counseling and management decisions in cases of PPROM in women with twins.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".