MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3135188626 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwab002.179

A181 CAUSES FOR C-SECTION IN IBD PATIENTS: A RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW

2021· review· en· W3135188626 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vivek Govardhanam, Parul Tandon, Vivian Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of LethbridgeSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUlcerative colitisInflammatory bowel diseaseRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineMedical recordIncidence (geometry)Vaginal deliveryCaesarean sectionAnastomosisDiseaseGastroenterologySurgeryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a group of chronic inflammatory conditions including ulcerative colitis (UC), Crohn’s disease (CD) or IBD-unclassified. Current expert guidelines recommend only two IBD-related reasons to consider C-section: perianal CD and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) history. However, the incidence of C section among IBD patients is higher than the non-IBD patients. There is a sparsity of literature on what other factors influence the decision to perform caesarean delivery among IBD patients. Aims To investigate IBD-related and non-IBD related reasons leading to C-section in IBD patients. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed on women with IBD, >18 years of age and/or older, who delivered at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto 2016–2019. OB records and OR records were reviewed to obtain information specific to C-section. Results A total of 119 deliveries were reviewed. 47 out of the 119 had C-section delivery. 42.9% (N=21) of C-section was in UC patients and 57.1% (N=28) was in CD patients. Maternal request comprised 2.1% (N=1) and arrest of cervical dilation 6.4% (N=3). 20.4% (N=10) patients failed vaginal delivery. Only 8.7% of C-section deliveries were Primiparous. 42.9% (N=12) of patients from the CD category that underwent C-section had fistulizing CD. 46.4% (N=13) of patients with CD had stricturing CD and underwent C-Section. 63.8% (N=30) of the patients that had C-section had planned C-Section. 26.6% (N=8) of the planned C-section was due to a history of the perianal disease and only 13.3% (N=4) had an active perianal disease. Other causes for planned C-section included J-pouch (10%, N=3) and active UC (2.1%, N=1). As per expert recommendation, we would anticipate 14% of patients to have C-section due to IBD related reasons however we found that 30% of the patients had C-section due to IBD related reasons. Conclusions Based on the preliminary data from our retrospective study we find that 30% of the C-sections were due to IBD related reasons and 70% C-sections were from non-IBD related reasons. Funding Agencies None

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)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→