Emergency physician gender is associated with early pregnancy loss management: a multisite retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Patients experiencing early pregnancy loss often first present to the emergency department (ED) where they can be managed non-operatively through expectant or medical management, or surgically by the obstetrical team. Studies have reported that physician gender can influence clinical decision making, but there is limited research on this phenomenon in the ED. The objective of this study was to determine whether emergency physician gender is associated with early pregnancy loss management. Methods Data were retrospectively collected from patients who presented to Calgary EDs with a non-viable pregnancy from 2014 to 2019. Pregnancies>12 weeks gestational age were excluded. The emergency physicians included saw at least 15 cases of pregnancy loss over the study period. The primary outcome was obstetrical consult rates by male versus female emergency physicians. Secondary outcomes included rates of initial surgical evacuation via dilation and curettage (D&C) procedures, ED returns, returns to care for D&Cs and total D&C rates. Data were analysed using χ2, Fisher’s exact and Mann-Whitney U tests, as appropriate. Multivariable logistic regression models accounted for physician age, years of practice, training programme and type of pregnancy loss. Results 98 emergency physicians and 2630 patients from 4 ED sites were included. 76.5% of the physicians were male accounting for 80.4% of pregnancy loss patients. Patients seen by female physicians were more likely to receive an obstetrical consultation (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.50, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.83) and initial surgical management (aOR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.69). ED return rates and total D&C rates were not associated with physician gender. Conclusion Patients seen by female emergency physicians had higher rates of obstetrical consultation and initial operative management compared with those seen by male emergency physicians, but outcomes were similar. Additional research is required to determine why these gender differences exist and how these discrepancies may impact the care of early pregnancy loss patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".