Medically induced labor: Epidural analgesia and women’sperceptions of pain in early labor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Approximately 25% of all deliveries in Denmark are medically induced, typically characterized by more intense uterine contractions. The aim of this paper is to investigate the differences in the administration of epidural analgesia and pain experience between spontaneous and medically induced labor in nulliparous and multiparous women. METHODS: This is a prospective case-controlled study of 100 participating women in labor. The primary outcome was the timing of administration of epidural analgesia, by delivery progression and frequency. Pain scores were indicated by the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the duration of pain was also notified. RESULTS: In nulliparous and multiparous women, medically induced labor was associated with earlier administration of epidural analgesia in relation to the onset of labor pain, compared to women with a spontaneous onset of labor (10.4 vs 26.10 hours, p=0.0). There was a trend, however not statistical, in the use of epidural analgesia in relation to delivery progression, assessed as dilation of the cervix (3 cm vs 4.5 cm, p=0.07) and towards higher frequency for medically induced labor (51.5% vs 32.8%, p=0.07). In nulliparous women, a reduced period of labor pain was shown in medically induced deliveries compared to spontaneous deliveries (9.30 vs 19.00 hours, p=0.03). However, no significant differences in experienced pain were shown (Score: 28.70 vs 29.60, p=0.194). CONCLUSIONS: Epidural analgesia was administered earlier, and duration of experienced pain was shorter in medically induced labor, in comparison to spontaneous deliveries. However, the experienced pain was not different, possibly explained by a more intense labor process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".