Mild thrombocytopenia and the risk for postpartum hemorrhage in twin pregnancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the association of mild thrombocytopenia with postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) and blood transfusion among women with twin gestations. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study (Jan 2015 to May 2019) was performed. Women with twin pregnancies and pre-delivery mild thrombocytopenia were compared to those with normal platelet count. The primary outcome was the rate of PPH, defined as a composite of one or more of the following: (1) need for packed red blood cell transfusion; (2) postpartum hemoglobin decline of ≥3 g/dL; and (3) the use of postpartum uterotonics agents in addition to oxytocin. RESULTS: Of 1085 women who were included in final analysis, 315 (30.9%) had mild thrombocytopenia (and 770 (69.1%) served as controls. The rate of PPH was increased in the study group (14% vs. 9.4%, P = 0.03), as was the use of uterotonic agents (3.8% vs. 1.3%, respectively, P = 0.02). The rate of blood product transfusion and hemoglobin decline >3 g/dL was not significantly different between the groups. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, mild thrombocytopenia was associated with a higher risk for PPH (OR 1.55 [95% CI 1.02-2.35], P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Mild thrombocytopenia in twin pregnancies is associated with an increased risk of interventions such as the use of uterotonic agents.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".