MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106511303 · doi:10.14740/jmc3597

Impact of the Induction of Labor on Hemophilia Carriers and Their Newborn Infants

2020· article· en· W3106511303 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mami Shibahara, Eiji Shibata, Yasuyuki Kinjo, Chiharu Tomonaga, Toshihide Sakuragi, Shoko Amimoto, Hiroshi Mori, Satoshi Aramaki, Kiyoshi Yoshino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Occupational and Environmental Health
KeywordsMedicineForcepsVaginal deliveryObstetricsForceps deliveryInduction of laborLabor inductionPediatricsPregnancySurgeryOxytocinInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hemophilia is a risk for severe hemorrhage in newborns during the perinatal period and excessive postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in hemophilia carriers. Vacuum extraction or use of forceps should be avoided to prevent neonatal intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Optimal modes of delivery such as vaginal or cesarean section are open to debate. The safety of the induction of labor is also worthy of investigation. Here we ask if labor induction is a safe delivery mode for pregnant women who are hemophilia carriers and their infants. We looked at 13 deliveries by hemophilia carriers at our hospital from 2005 to 2018. Two of the five male neonates complicated by hemophilia suffered ICH complications (40%). Both were delivered by induced labor. No deliveries by carriers had PPH which required treatment. Our data indicate that the induction of labor may provoke ICH in infants with hemophilia. We suggest that induction of labor is not a preferable delivery method for hemophilia carriers to avoid neonatal ICH.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207