Cervical dilation at time of caesarean delivery in nulliparous women: a population‐based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to describe contemporary practice patterns in the timing of caesarean delivery in relation to cervical dilation, overall and by indication for caesarean. Our secondary objective was to examine how commonly caesarean delivery was performed for labour dystocia at dilations below 4 cm or without the use of oxytocin, overall and between hospitals. DESIGN: Retrospective, population-based cohort study. SETTING: Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia, Canada, 2008-2012. POPULATION: Nulliparous women in labour who delivered term singletons in cephalic position. METHODS: Histograms were used to examine the distribution of cervical dilation at time of caesarean delivery, overall and by indication for caesarean. Funnel plots were used to illustrate variation in hospital-level rates of caesarean deliveries for labour dystocia that were performed early (<4 cm dilation) or without the use of oxytocin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cervical dilation (in centimetres) at time of caesarean delivery. RESULTS: The population-based cohort comprised 392 025 women, of whom 18.8% had a caesarean delivery. Of first-stage caesareans for labour dystocia in women who entered labour spontaneously, 13.6% (95% CI 12.9, 14.2) had dilations <4 cm [hospital-level inter-quartile range (IQR): 6.2% to 20.0%] and 29.5% (95% CI 28.6, 30.4) did not receive oxytocin to treat their dystocia (hospital-level IQR: 22.1-54.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of caesareans done before 4 cm dilation or without oxytocin varies substantially across hospitals and suggests the need for institutions to review their practices and ensure that management of labour practice guidelines are followed. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Many caesareans for labour dystocia are performed early during labour (<4 cm dilation) or without oxytocin.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".