A COMPARISON OF ANALGESIA AND FOETAL OUTCOME IN TERM PARTURIENTS WITH AND WITHOUT LOW DOSE COMBINED SPINAL EPIDURAL LABOUR ANALGESIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE:We aimed to find a safe method of labor analgesia with minimal side effects and toxicity in mother and fetus using combined 'low dose' spinal and epidural (CSE).DESIGN: prospective case control study.SETTING: Labour suite of a tertiary care hospital.PATIENTS: study population included 120 pregnant women of ASA physical status I and II parturients in active labor who requested analgesia, 60 of these patients were given labour analgesia -'GROUP T' and 60 of who underwent a delivery without labour analgesia -'GROUP C'. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Maternal hemodynamics, degree of pain relief, duration of labour, fetal heart rate, Apgar scores, mode of delivery, intervention to relieve pain, Adverse effects because of procedure and drugs used were also noted.Low dose epidural analgesia does not prolong labour and does not increase the incidence of instrumental deliveries when compared to parturients undergoing delivery without labour analgesia.Even with the reduced dose of fentanyl the parturients had acceptable pain relief and a decreased incidence of intervention for pain.It does not cause more fetal depression when compared to normally laboring term parturients.'Low dose' labour analgesia is a safe technique for painless labour with no harmful effects on the mother or baby and it does not significantly affect the obstetric outcome.CONCLUSION: 'Low dose' labour analgesia is a safe technique for painless labour with no harmful effects on the mother or baby and it does not significantly affect the obstetric outcome.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".