MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4238957878 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139680790.024

Acute tocolysis

2011· book-chapter· en· W4238957878 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas F. Baskett, Sabaratnam Arulkumaran

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaObstetricsGeneral anaesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As noted in other chapters, there are a number of conditions in obstetrics in which prompt relaxation of the uterus is necessary. In the past this could be achieved only by the rapid induction of general anaesthesia using halogenated agents, with its attendant risks. The development of simply administered tocolytic drugs has reduced the need for this risky use of general anaesthesia. When acute tocolysis is required, regional anaesthesia in the form of spinal or epidural block may be in place. Although these regional anaesthetics provide good analgesia, they have no tocolytic effect; hence, the administration of tocolytic drugs is necessary to achieve optimum uterine relaxation. Indications EXCESSIVE UTERINE ACTION IN LABOUR Uterine hyperstimulation in labour is defined as more than five uterine con tractions in a 10-minute period (tachysystole) or contractions exceeding 2 minutes in duration (hypertonus). Although uterine hyper stimulation can occur in spontaneous labour, it is more likely in pathological conditions such as placental abruption. Uterine hyperstimulation is most often found in response to uterotonic drugs such as oxytocin and, more commonly, prostaglandins which are used for cervical ripening and induction of labour.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.017

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicMaternal and fetal healthcare→French-language works237,207→