MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002688199 · doi:10.1097/ogx.0000000000000752

Induction of Labor: An Overview of Guidelines

2020· article· en· W3002688199 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNiceGuidelineExcellenceLabor inductionInduction of laborMisoprostolFamily medicineNursingObstetricsPregnancyAbortionOxytocin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance Induction of labor (IOL) is a common obstetric intervention that stimulates the onset of labor using artificial methods. Objective The aim of this study was to summarize and compare recommendations from 4 national or international medical societies on the IOL. Evidence Acquisition A descriptive review was conducted of major published guidelines on IOL: the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' “Induction of Labor” and “Management of Late-Term and Postterm Pregnancies,” the guidelines of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) on “Induction of Labour,” those of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on “Inducing Labour,” and the World Health Organization's (WHO's) “Recommendations for Induction of Labour” and “WHO Recommendations: Induction of Labour at or Beyond Term.” These guidelines were compared in terms of their recommendations on clinical indications and methods. Results Many similar indications and contraindications to IOL are identified between American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and SOGC, whereas NICE and WHO do not mention any contraindications. The timing of IOL in postterm pregnancies also differs among the guidelines. Regarding the methods of induction, all the medical societies recommend the use of membrane sweeping, mechanical methods, prostaglandins, and oxytocin, whereas NICE argues against the use of misoprostol for IOL. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and SOGC consider amniotomy a method of IOL, whereas NICE and WHO do not recommend it. All the guidelines also make similar recommendations regarding the management of uterine tachysystole in cases of IOL. Conclusions The World Health Organization seems to be the most evidence-based guideline with recommendations based mainly on Cochrane reviews. The variation in the clinical indications and methods of IOL highlights the need to adopt an international consensus, which may help to optimize the quality of obstetric care and further promote evidence-based medicine. Target Audience Obstetricians and gynecologists, family physicians. Learning Objectives After participating in this activity, the learner should be better able to identify the appropriate indications for induction of labor; explain the effectiveness and associated risks of using prostaglandins, misoprostol, oxytocin, and amniotomy for induction of labor; and assess the definition and alternatives of failure of induction of labor.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.486
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.016 · 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