Update on intrapartum fetal pulse oximetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article examines the current status of fetal pulse oximetry (FPO) as a means of intrapartum assessment of fetal wellbeing. FPO has been developed to a stage where it is a safe and accurate indicator of intrapartum fetal oxygenation. In general, sliding the FPO sensor along the examiner's fingers and through the cervix, to lie alongside the fetal cheek or temple is easy. The recent publication of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of FPO versus conventional intrapartum monitoring has validated its use to reduce caesarean section rates for nonreassuring fetal status. An Australian multicentre RCT is currently underway. Maternal satisfaction rates with FPO are high. FPO may be used during labour when the electronic fetal heart rate trace is nonreassuring or when conventional monitoring is unreliable, such as with fetal arrhythmias. If the fetal oxygen saturation (FSpO2) values are < 30%, prompt obstetric intervention is indicated, such as fetal scalp blood sampling or delivery. FSpO2 monitoring should not form the sole basis of intrapartum fetal welfare assessment. Rather, the whole clinical picture should be considered.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".