Standard and adjusted criteria for the use of the misoprostol vaginal insert for labor induction: a comparative cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the efficacy of misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI) for labor induction using standard and adjusted criteria. Methods A single-center, comparative cohort study using a consecutive series of pregnant women ≥37/0 weeks undergoing labor induction with either standard criteria for MVI (administration for up to 24 h; MVI-24) or with adjusted criteria (MVI administration for a maximum of 10 h; MVI-10) conducted at a tertiary academic center in Germany. The primary outcomes were the time from start of induction to any delivery and cesarean delivery rate. Results A total of 138 women were included in the study, 69 in each group. The mean time from MVI administration to any delivery showed no significant difference between the MVI-24 and MVI-10 groups (954 vs. 969 min, respectively; P = 0.679). The cesarean delivery rate was proportionally lower for the MVI-10 group [39.1% (27/69) vs. 24.6% (17/69); P = 0.10]. Conclusion The time from induction to delivery with MVI was similar when using standard criteria of up to 24 h of exposure vs. adjusted criteria of up to 10 h of exposure. Although the threshold for statistical significance for cesarean section was not attained, there is nonetheless a considerable difference between the MVI-24 and MVI-10 groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".