Maternal microcirculation and sidestream dark field imaging: A prospective assessment of the association between labour pain and analgesia on the microcirculation of pregnant women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pregnancy places significant demands on the cardiovascular system leading to measurable changes in the macrocirculation and potentially the microcirculation. During labour, both uterine contractions and labour pain can further impact cardiovascular status. The objective of this observational study was to compare sublingual microcirculation in labouring parturients before and after epidural analgesia. METHODS: Healthy pregnant, labouring women requesting epidural analgesia were approached to participate. Participants with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, smoking or caffeine intake were excluded. The sidestream dark field device was applied to the sublingual mucosa obtaining images of at least 20 seconds in 5 visual fields before and after epidural analgesia. Video clips were analyzed randomly and blindly. The primary outcome was mean microvascular flow index (MFI). RESULTS: Twelve participants completed this study. The results demonstrate no statistically significant difference in the MFI during labour pain (2.9±0.1) compared to after epidural analgesia (3.0±0.04, p = 0.31). Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences in any secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that epidural analgesia may not impact sublingual microcirculation in labouring women. This agrees with literature supporting epidural analgesia as a safe, appropriate method of pain relief during labour with limited impact on peripheral macro or microcirculation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".