The Effect of Induction of Labor on Second Stage Duration in Nulliparous Women, before and after the ACOG and SMFM Change in Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To examine the effect of induction of labor (IOL) on the length of second stage of labor in nulliparous, compared to spontaneous labor while considering the change in the Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (ACOG & SMFM) guidelines. Methods: A retrospective study of nulliparous women who delivered vaginally at a single center (2011–2017). Second stage duration was compared between women with IOL to those who went into spontaneous labor, in the pre and post-guideline periods. Results: The study included 5222 nulliparous women. Women who had an IOL had more epidural analgesia and prolonged second stage of labor than those who went into spontaneous labor (95.2% vs. 71.9%, p < 0.0001 and 6.1% vs. 1%, p < 0.0001, respectively). Second-stage was longer in the IOL group, in pre-guidelines (mean duration 69 min vs. 151 min, p < 0.001), and in the post-guidelines period (mean duration 69 min vs. 146 min, p < 0.001), even after controlling for epidural analgesia. Conclusions: In one academic center the second-stage duration in nulliparous women who go through IOL, is longer than women who go into labor spontaneously in both the time frame before and after national changes in the definition of the second stage duration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".