MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386807124 · doi:10.1016/j.gocm.2023.09.001

Does cesarean section prevent adverse neonatal outcomes associated with meconium amniotic fluid?

2023· article· en· W4386807124 on OpenAlexaff
Amene Ranjbar, Sepideh Rezaei Ghamsari, Elham Taeidi, Vahid Mehrnoush, Fatemeh Darsareh

Bibliographic record

VenueGynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsNOSM University
FundersHormozgan University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsAmniotic fluidObstetricsMeconiumMedicineAdverse effectSection (typography)PregnancyFetusInternal medicineBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Making decisions regarding the mode of delivery in the cases of meconium amniotic fluid (MAF) presents a challenge for healthcare providers. We aimed to compare the neonatal outcome of MAF cases delivered via cesarean section (CS) versus those delivered vaginally to determine if CS is a protective factor against the adverse neonatal outcomes. Methods In this retrospective study, we assessed singleton pregnant mothers diagnosed with MAF who gave birth at a tertiary hospital in Bandar Abbas, Iran, between January 2020-2022. Mothers with certain adverse pregnancy conditions were excluded from the study. These conditions included: abnormal fetal heart rate and pattern, bloody amniotic fluid, malpresentation, abnormal placentation, chorioamnionitis, intrauterine growth restriction, intrauterine fetal death, obstructed labor, and maternal comorbidities. The MAF mothers were divided into two groups based on the method of delivery: those who had CS and those who had a normal vaginal delivery (NVD). Demographic factors, obstetrical factors, and neonatal outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results Out of 746 MAF mothers, 213 (28.5%) underwent CS, while 533 (71.4%) had NVD. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of demographic characteristics. Among MAF mothers who had CS, 66.2% were primiparous, and 33.8% were multiparous. For those who had NVD, 35.1% were primiparous, and 64.9% were multiparous. The first and 5-min Apgar values, rates of asphyxia, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, and neonatal death were not statistically different between the two delivery modes. The rate of newborns who breastfed within the first hour did not differ depending on the mode of delivery. Although initial resuscitation steps were required more frequently in MAF mothers with NVD than in those with CS (11.1% vs. 2.3%), no correlation was found between the mode of delivery and the need for resuscitation using logistic regression. Conclusions Our research findings suggest that there were no superior neonatal outcomes in terms of CS compared to NVD in MAF mothers. Further studies are needed to provide more substantial evidence to support this conclusion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGynecology and Obstetrics Clinical MedicineSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207