Neonatal outcome by planned mode of delivery in women with a body mass index of 35 or more: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: who underwent a trial of labour with those of women who underwent a planned primary caesarean section (CS). DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of births between April 2012 and March 2014. SETTING: A provincial database: Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario, Canada. POPULATION: who had a singleton birth at 38-42 weeks of gestation. METHODS: Neonatal outcomes were compared between women who underwent a trial of labour (with either a successful vaginal birth or intrapartum CS) and those who underwent a planned CS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: A composite of any of the following outcomes: intrapartum neonatal death, neonatal intensive care unit admission, 5-minute Apgar score of <7 or umbilical artery pH of <7.1. RESULTS: During the study period, 8433 (96.4%) women had a trial of labour and 319 (3.6%) had a planned CS. Intrapartum CS was performed in 1644 (19.5%) cases. There was no association between planned mode of delivery and the primary outcome (aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.59-1.07). The primary outcome was lower among women who had a successful trial of labour (aOR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.91) and was higher among women who had a failed trial of labour (aOR 1.74, 95% CI 1.21-2.48), compared with women who underwent a planned CS. CONCLUSIONS: at a gestational age of 38-42 weeks, neonatal outcomes are comparable between planned vaginal delivery and planned CS, although a failed trial of labour is at risk of adverse neonatal outcome. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: .
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".