MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221097782 · doi:10.1177/1753495x221089206

Maternal and neonatal complications during delivery according to passive versus active second stage in woman with medical conditions (ComPActSS)

2022· article· en· W4221097782 on OpenAlexaff
Élisabeth Gagnon, Anne‐Marie Côté, Marie‐Ève Roy‐Lacroix, Édith Massé, Mandy Malick, Nadine Sauvé

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetric Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy-related medical research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Vaginal deliveryStage (stratigraphy)ObstetricsRetrospective cohort studyCohortPediatricsPregnancySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The incidence of serious complications during vaginal delivery with a passive second stage in women with medical conditions is unknown. Methods Our retrospective cohort study with matched groups (pairing 1 passive with 2 active second stage) included women who had a medical delivery plan from the high risk obstetric team at our center. The primary outcome was a composite of major maternal and neonatal complications. Results The primary outcome occurred in 50% (12/24) of women in the passive group versus 35.4% (17/48) ( p = 0.24) in the active group. In the passive group, we observed a longer passive second stage of labor (28 vs. 8 min, p < 0.001), a tendency towards more assisted vaginal births (29.2% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.08), and more traumatic deliveries (16.7% vs. 0%, p = 0.012). Conclusion The higher proportion of complications in women who had a passive second stage should encourage physicians to make this recommendation only in selected cases.

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetric MedicineSame topicPregnancy-related medical researchFrench-language works237,207