MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reduction of Total Labor Length Through the Addition of Parenteral Dextrose Solution in Induction of Labor in Nulliparous: Results of DEXTRONS Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

2018· article· en· W2792364150 on OpenAlexaff
J Paré, Jean-Charles Pasquier, Antoine Lewin, Fraser Wd, Yves-André Bureau

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetric Anesthesia Digest · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialNeonatal hypoglycemiaInduction of laborHypoglycemiaObstetricsAnesthesiaPregnancyGestationSurgeryEndocrinologyDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(5):508.e1–508.e7) Nulliparous women undergoing labor induction are particularly susceptible to having very long labors which are associated with negative effects for both mother and child. Since glucose supplementation improves athletic performance during prolonged exercise and labor could be considered a similar activity, it is thought that the addition of glucose during labor might help muscle performance and shorten labor length. Previous studies have had conflicting results as to the usefulness of the addition of carbohydrates to the overall length of labor, with one study showing an increase in cesarean deliveries and another an increase in neonatal hypoglycemia. To add to this research, a double-blind randomized controlled trial was set up to investigate whether the addition of intravenous glucose shortened active labor, had an effect on the rate of cesarean deliveries or affected neonatal health.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetric Anesthesia DigestSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207