Incidence and Risk Factors of Uterine Scar Dehiscence Identified at Elective Repeat Cesarean Delivery: A Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to determine the rate of uterine scar dehiscence among women undergoing elective repeat cesarean delivery and to investigate associated risk factors. Methods: This was a retrospective case-control study of patients with previous one or more lower segment transverse cesarean incisions giving birth by elective repeat cesarean delivery at two tertiary-care centers over a period of 1 year. Demographic data, previous and current obstetric events were recorded and compared among women with or without uterine scar dehiscence. Results: Among 588 patients included in this study, 27 cases of uterine scar dehiscence were identified with an incidence of 4.6%. This rate was not affected by maternal age, parity, co-morbidity, twin gestation, preoperative labor or previous preterm cesarean delivery. Factors significantly associated with uterine scar dehiscence were “preterm delivery” (OR: 2.76, 95% CI: 1.18 - 6.42), “tertiary cesarean delivery or higher” (OR: 2.56, 95% CI: 1.14 - 5.75) and “inter-delivery interval ≤ 24 months” (OR: 2.38, 95% CI: 1.04 - 5.44). No immediate adverse maternal or neonatal complications were noted. Conclusions: Uterine scar dehiscence is not uncommon among women undergoing elective repeat cesarean delivery. Increased risk was associated with preterm delivery, tertiary cesarean delivery or higher and short inter-delivery interval of ≤ 24 months. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2018;7(2):37-42 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcgo481w
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".