Placenta retention is associated with threatened abortion at the early stage of pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Retained placenta (RP) is an obstetric issue complicating around 3% of normal deliveries.Previous studies identified various risk factors for RP.In clinical experience, women with a history of threatened abortion (TA) often are noted to have a higher risk of RP.Yet, limited research has been performed in this area.Aim: To explore the association between RP and TA.Material and methods: A retrospective cohort study including 219 women with viable pregnancies who had TA and 219 women who had not experienced TA with no evidence of subchorionic hematoma (SCH) between January 2019 and January 2021 were included.Demographic information and adverse pregnancy outcomes were compared.Women who had TA were further divided into two groups: SCH group and non-SCH group, and their demographic information and adverse pregnancy outcomes were also compared.c 2 tests or Mann-Whitney U-tests were used for categorical/continuous variables respectively.Results: The incidence of RP among women with TA was 25/219, compared to 10/219 in the control group (aOR = 2.33, 95% CI: 1.05-5.13,p = 0.04).Women had TA were at a higher risk of postpartum hemorrhage (aOR = 3.73, 95% CI: 1.68-8.27,p = 0.001).In addition, women with SCH were less likely to develop placenta previa (p = 0.04).However, when adjusted for confounders, the difference was not significant (aOR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.02-1.26,p = 0.08).Conclusions: We found that threatened abortion is associated with a higher risk of retained placenta as well as postpartum hemorrhage.Therefore, active management at the third stage of labor was recommended among women with a history of threatened abortion.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".