The effect of induction method in twin pregnancies: a secondary analysis for the twin birth study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This secondary analysis for the Twin Birth Study, an international, multicenter trial, aimed to compare the cesarean section rates and safety between methods of induction of labor in twin pregnancies. METHODS: Women with twin pregnancies where the first twin was in a cephalic presentation and who presented for labor induction, were non-randomly assigned to receive prostaglandin or amniotomy and/or oxytocin. Main outcome measures were the rates of unplanned cesarean section and neonatal and maternal mortality or serious morbidity. RESULTS: 153 (41.5%) were induced by prostaglandin (prostaglandin group) and 215 (58.5%) were induced by amniotomy and/or oxytocin alone (no prostaglandin group). Induction using prostaglandin was more common in countries with a low perinatal mortality rate <10/1000 (45.7 versus 32.5%, p = 0.02). Cesarean section rates were similar in the two groups: 62/153 (40.5%) in the prostaglandin group and 87/215 (40.5%) in the no prostaglandin group (odds ratio 1, 95% CI 0.65-1.5). Nulliparity, late maternal age, non-cephalic presentation of twin B and high country's perinatal mortality rate were found to be independently associated with the induction to end with an unplanned cesarean section. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to maternal or neonatal adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The need for cervical ripening by prostaglandin had no effect on the incidence of cesarean delivery or an abnormal outcome. There is a significant risk of unplanned cesarean section independent of chosen induction method. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Register (identifier ISRCTN74420086 ; December 9, 2003) and retrospectively registered at the www.clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT 00187369 ; September 12, 2005).
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".