MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740360193 · doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1400-y

Progesterone in women with arrested premature labor, a report of a randomised clinical trial and updated meta-analysis

2017· article· en· W2740360193 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Wood, Yacov Rabi, Selphee Tang, Rollin Brant, Susan Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPreterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaAlberta Children's HospitalFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialGestationObstetricsReproductive medicineGestational ageClinical trialPremature birthGynecologyMeta-analysisPreterm laborPregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Progesterone may be effective in prevention of premature birth in some high risk populations. Women with arrested premature labor are at risk of recurrent labor and maintenance therapy with standard tocolytics has not been successful. METHODS: Randomized double blinded clinical trial of daily treatment with 200 mg vaginal progesterone in women with arrested premature labor and an updated meta-analysis. RESULTS: The clinical trial was terminated early after 41 women were enrolled. Vaginal progesterone treatment did not change the median gestational age at delivery: 36+2 weeks versus 36+4 weeks, p = .865 nor increase the mean latency to delivery: 44.5 days versus 46.6 days, p = .841. In the updated meta-analysis, progesterone treatment did reduce delivery <37 weeks gestation and increase latency to delivery, but this treatment effect was not evident in the high quality trials: (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.91, 1.67) and (-0.95 days, 95% CI -5.54, 3.64) respectively. CONCLUSION: Progesterone is not effective for preventing preterm birth following arrested preterm labor.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Pregnancy and ChildbirthSame topicPreterm Birth and ChorioamnionitisFrench-language works237,207