Outcomes in emergency versus electively scheduled cases of placenta accreta spectrum disorder managed by cesarean‐hysterectomy within a multidisciplinary care team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Compare maternal and perinatal outcomes between emergency and electively scheduled cesarean-hysterectomy for placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) disorders. METHOD: Single-center retrospective cohort study including 125 cases of antenatally suspected and pathologically confirmed PAS disorders. Maternal and perinatal outcomes were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression was used to test associations. Survival curves exploring risk factors for emergency birth were sought. RESULTS: 25 (20%) and 100 (80%) patients had emergency and electively scheduled birth, respectively. Emergency birth had a higher estimated blood loss (2772 [2256.75] vs. 1561.19 [1152.95], P < 0.001), with a higher rate of coagulopathy (40% vs. 6%; P < 0.001) and bladder injury (44% vs. 13%; P < 0.001); and was associated with increased rates of blood transfusion (aOR 4.9, CI95% 1.3-17.5, P = 0.01), coagulopathy (aOR 16.4, CI95% 2.6-101.4, P = 0.002) and urinary tract injury (aOR 6.96, CI95% 1.5-30.7, P = 0.01). Gestational age at birth was lower in the emergency group (31.55 [4.75] vs. 35.19 [2.77], P = 0.001), no difference in perinatal mortality was found. A sonographically short cervix and/or history of APH had an increased cumulative risk of emergency birth with advancing gestational age. CONCLUSION: Patients with PAS disorders managed in a tertiary center by a multidisciplinary team requiring emergency birth have increased maternal morbidity and poorer perinatal outcomes than those with electively scheduled birth.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".