Defining a Reference Range for Vital Signs in Healthy Term Pregnant Women Undergoing Caesarean Section
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early warning systems (EWS), used to identify deteriorating hospitalised patients, are based on measurement of vital signs. When the patients are pregnant, most EWS still use non-pregnant reference ranges of vital signs to determine trigger thresholds. There are no published reference ranges for all vital signs in pregnancy. We aimed to define vital signs reference ranges for term pregnancy in the preoperative period, and to determine the appropriateness of EWS trigger criteria in pregnancy. We conducted a one-year retrospective study in a tertiary referral obstetric hospital. The study sample was healthy term women undergoing planned caesarean section (CS). Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) and temperature were all measured automatically and data was extracted from the medical record. Two hundred and fifty-eight women met inclusion criteria. Results were (mean ± SD [standard deviation]) SBP 118 ± 11.2 mmHg, DBP 75 ± 10.3 mmHg, HR 84 ± 10.2 /minute, respiratory rate 18 ± 1.5 /minute, SpO 2 99% ± 1.0% and temperature 36.4°C ± 0.43°C. The reference ranges (mean ± 2SD) determined were SBP 96–140 mmHg, DBP 54–96 mmHg, HR 64-104 /minute, RR 15–21 /minute, SpO 2 97%–100% and temperature 35.5°C–37.3°C. This study defined a reference range for vital signs in healthy term pregnant women undergoing CS. Study findings suggest that currently used criteria for EWS triggers, based on non-pregnant values, may be too extreme for timely detection of deteriorating pregnant patients. Further research examining the modified HR triggers of ≤50 and ≥110 /minute in pregnant women and their relationship to clinical outcomes is required.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".