Caesarean birth in women with infertility: population‐based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Caesarean section (CS) is more common following infertility treatment (IT) but the reasons why remain unclear and confounded. The Robson 10-Group Classification System (TGCS) may further explain variation in CS rates. We assessed the association between mode of conception and CS across Robson groups. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING: Ontario, Canada, in a public healthcare system. POPULATION: 921 023 births, 2006-2014. METHODS: Modified Poisson regression produced relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals, comparing the risk of CS among women with (1) subfertility without IT, (2) non-invasive IT (OI, IUI) or (3) invasive IT (IVF)-each relative to (4) spontaneous conception (SC). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CS rate according to one of four modes of conception, overall and stratified by each of the TGCS groups. RESULTS: Relative to SC (26.9%), the risk of CS increased in those with subfertility without IT (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.16-1.18), non-invasive IT (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.18-1.24) and invasive IT (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.36-1.42). Within each Robson group, similar patterns of RRs were seen, but with markedly differing rates. For example, in Group 1 (nulliparous, singleton, cephalic at ≥37 weeks, with spontaneous labour), the respective rates were 15.0, 19.4, 18.7 and 21.9%; in Group 2 (nulliparous, singleton, cephalic at ≥37 weeks, without spontaneous labour), the rates were 35.9, 44.4, 43.2 and 54.1%; and in Group 8 (multiple pregnancy), they were 55.9, 67.5, 65.0 and 69.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CS is relatively more common in women with subfertility and those receiving IT, an effect that persists across Robson groups. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Caesarean delivery is more common in women with infertility independent of demographics and prenatal conditions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".