MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737597322 · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14549

Instrumental delivery: complex paternity and a fading art

2017· article· en· W2737597322 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eric Jauniaux, John Thorp

Bibliographic record

VenueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusicology and Musical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForcepsWifeQueen (butterfly)Obstetrics and gynaecologyMedicineForceps deliveryArt historyHistoryLawVaginal deliveryPregnancySurgeryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For Sir Thomas NA Jeffcoate (1907–1992), Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the Women's Hospital, Liverpool and President of the RCOG (1969–1972), the invention of the forceps was ‘probably the most important event in the history of obstetrics’ (BMJ 1953;4843:951–5). As he also stated: ‘it was the first serious incursions of the medical profession into the realms of midwifery’ and ‘it became hated by the midwives, who did everything possible to discredit it in the eyes of parturient women’. Peter Chamberlen the Elder (1560–1631) ‘accoucheur’ to Queen Henrietta (wife of Charles 1) is believed to be the inventor of the forceps (Hibbard. Med Historian 1997;18:41-60). He went to great lengths to keep his forceps secret, bringing it to birthing-rooms in an ornate box, hidden from view, blindfolding his patients and never allowing anyone else in the room during the delivery. The Chamberlen forceps remained under the attic floorboards in the family home at Woodham Mortimer Hall until its accidental discovery in 1813. Many different types of forceps were developed over the following centuries, including those by Willam Smellie (1697–1763, UK); John R. Barton (1794–1871, USA); James Y Simpson (1811–1870, UK); Etienne Tarnier (1828–1897, France); Christian Kielland (1871–1941, Norway); and Arthur Wrigley (1904–1984, UK). In 1957, John Mann, an obstetrician in Toronto, Canada, and inventor of a joint-locking forceps (Figure 1) noted that if the teaching and general use of obstetric forceps had greatly improved in the previous 50 years, the weakest point in the teaching was ‘a failure to grasp a few of the fundamental mechanical principles involved’ (J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp 1957;64:351–4). The paternity of the ‘ventouse’ is more complicated. John Yonge (1646–1721), a naval surgeon from Plymouth, in 1706 is believed to be the first to have used a suction devise for delivery. James Y. Simpson (1811–1870, UK) similarly developed a suction ‘air-tractor’ in 1849 but his instrument met with very little success (Chalmers. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp 1963;70:94–100). The modern suction metal cup ventouse was designed by the French obstetrician, Yves Couzigou (1910–1989), and was used successfully for the first time in 1946 (he patented it in 1948) but its paternity was then attributed to the Swedish obstetrician Tage Malmstrom (1911–1995) who popularised its use. Malmstrom ended the dispute by writing to Couzigou, recognising his earlier contribution (www.infobretagne.com/couzigou-yves). By the 1970s, the vacuum extractor had almost completely replaced forceps for assisted vaginal deliveries in many European countries. By the end of the 1990s, the number of ventouse deliveries surpassed the number of forceps deliveries in the USA (Ali & Norwitz. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2009;2:5–17). Used by skilled operators, both the forceps and the ventouse are safe. There are clinical situations where one instrument may be better than the other but the decision as to which instrument to use depends on the preference and experience of the individual care provider. As highlighted in a review of the trends in operative vaginal delivery in 2005–2013 in the USA (Merriam et al. BJOG 2017;124:1365–72), expertise in instrumental delivery is rapidly disappearing with the rising numbers of caesarean delivery. None declared. Completed disclosure of interests form available to view online as supporting information. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.094
Scholarly communication0.0130.012
Open science0.0020.015
Research integrity0.0040.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & GynaecologySame topicMusicology and Musical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207