The Incidence and Outcomes of Late-Term Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the outcomes of late-term pregnancy. In this study, we aim to assess the incidence and adverse prenatal outcomes associated with late-term pregnancy. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed all singleton pregnant mothers who gave birth at Khalij-e-Fars Hospital in Bandar Abbas, Iran, between January 2020 and 2022. All preterm and post-term deliveries were excluded. Mothers were divided into two groups: late-term mothers (41 0/7-41 6/7 weeks of gestation) and term mothers (37 0/7-40 6/7 weeks of gestation). Demographic factors, obstetric factors, maternal comorbidities, and prenatal outcomes were extracted from the electronic data of each mother. The incidence of late-term births was calculated. The chi-squared test was used to compare differences between the groups. Logistic regression models were used to assess the association of prenatal outcome with late-term pregnancy. RESULTS: There were 8,888 singleton deliveries during the study period, and 1,269 preterm and post-term pregnancies were ruled out. Of the 7,619 deliveries, 309 (4.1%) were late-term, while 7,310 (95.9%) were term. There were no sociodemographic differences between term and late-term mothers. The late-term group had a higher prevalence of primiparous mothers, and the term group had a higher prevalence of diabetes. Late-term mothers had a higher risk of macrosomia (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 2.24 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.34-3.01)), meconium amniotic fluid (aOR: 2.32 (95% CI: 1.59-3.14)), and fetal distress (aOR: 2.38 (95% CI: 1.54-2.79)). When compared to term pregnancy, the risk of low birth weight (LBW) was lower in late-term pregnancy (aOR: 0.69 (95% CI: 0.36-0.81)). CONCLUSIONS: Late-term pregnancy was found to be more likely to be associated with macrosomia, meconium amniotic fluid, and fetal distress, but serious maternal and neonatal adverse events were comparable to term pregnancy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".