Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the recurrence risk of stillbirth. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND POPULATION: All births 1992-2017, Alberta, Canada. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stillbirth was defined as the death in utero of a fetus with gestational age ≥20 weeks or weighing ≥500 g. Stillbirths were further subdivided into those occurring before labour and those in labour. RESULTS: We identified 744 897 births from 308 478 women. Of these, 3698 women experienced a stillbirth and, of these, 97.7%, experienced only one. For women with a small-for-gestational- age stillbirth in the first birth, their risk of a subsequent antepartum stillbirth was increased substantially: 4.09%, relative risk (RR) 10.39, 95% CI 5.81-18.59. For women with a first birth appropriate-for-gestational-age stillbirth with no risk factors such as pregnancy induced hypertension, the risk with pre-existing diabetes mellitus or hypertension was also increased but to a much lesser degree (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.23-4.91). For women who had experienced a first birth intrapartum stillbirth, the risk of another intrapartum stillbirth was very high (3.59%, RR 36.50, 95% CI 20.17-66.05). Most of these births also occurred prior to 24 weeks' gestation: 83% (10/12). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of recurrent antepartum stillbirth is low. The increase in risk in instances where the antepartum stillbirth was not growth-restricted is not clinically meaningful. Given the very low risk in any given gestational week, fetal surveillance is unlikely to be effective and may lead to unnecessary interventions. Intrapartum stillbirth has a very high recurrence risk but may not be preventable. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Stillbirth recurrence is rare.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".