P32.10: Abstract withdrawn.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate comparatively two management modalities in women with singleton pregnancies and with clinical risk factors for PTB (based on obstetric and gynecologic history): transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) surveillance of the cervical length and placement of CC indicated by cervical shortening (therapeutic cerclage, TC) versus prophylactic (elective) cerclage (PC).Methods: Data Sources and Study Selection: A search of entries in electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE) was supplemented with references cited in original articles to identify randomized trials and case-control studies comparing pregnancy outcomes after cervical surveillance and TC versus PC in a high-risk population of pregnant women with singleton pregnancies.Case and control groups consisted of women with singleton pregnancies matched for obstetrical and gynecological risk factors for preterm birth.The outcomes assessed were preterm delivery before 35 weeks or prior to 24 weeks of gestation.Studies were excluded if there was no matched control group or if only the abstract was available.Results: Of 5 studies identified, 3 met the inclusion criteria.A total of 367 patients were evaluated, 215 in the cervical surveillance arm and 152 with PC.Compared to women with PC, those who were followed by cervical surveillance, had no increased risk of preterm delivery before 24 or 35 weeks, respectively (RR 1.41; 95%CI 0.58-3.41;RR 1.24; 95%CI 0.75-2.04,respectively).The conservative approach achieved a 62% reduction in the number of patients undergoing CC placement.Conclusions: Serial TVU of the cervix with ultrasound-indicated TC appears a safe alternative to traditional PC and it spares a significant number of pregnant women an intervention with potential inherent complications. P32.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.194 | 0.081 |
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".