MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387633232 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3321982/v1

Vaginal Uncomplicated Delivery Rate as a Quality Indicator Compared to Cesarean Delivery Rate: A Quantitative Analysis of a Population Database

2023· preprint· en· W4387633232 on OpenAlexaffabout
Geoffrey W. Cundiff, Paramdeep Kaur, Gillian E. Hanley

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVaginal deliveryObstetricsPopulationObstetrics and gynaecologyCesarean deliveryForceps deliveryPregnancyGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Cesarean Delivery rate is a commonly used performance indicator to assess the quality of maternity care, and yet efforts to objectively define the optimal rate have foundered. The Vaginal Uncomplicated Delivery rate was developed as an alternative approach. The Vaginal Uncomplicated Delivery includes all vaginal deliveries, without an adverse labour outcome, whether or not forceps or vacuum were used. By assessing both mode of delivery as well as the absence of maternal and neonatal adverse delivery outcomes, it combines process and outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the Vaginal Uncomplicated Delivery rate as performance indicator, compared to the Cesarean Delivery rate. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of a higher risk obstetrical population drawn from the British Columbia Perinatal Data Registry, including all term deliveries by an obstetrician in 2015 in British Columbia, Canada. We excluded proscriptions for active labour, specifically transverse lie, active herpes, placenta previa, and vasa previa. Most obstetricians in this jurisdiction practice consultative obstetrics, focused on supporting primary maternity care. We investigated the association of Adverse Delivery with Cesarean Delivery and Vaginal Uncomplicated Delivery rates. Results: We report 16,620 deliveries by 210 obstetricians, with a vaginal delivery rate of 39.6%, of which 36.6% were operative vaginal delivery. The overall Adverse Delivery rate was 9.9%, and the overall Vaginal Uncomplicated Delivery rate was 34%. While the Cesarean Delivery and Vaginal Uncomplicated Delivery by definition were correlated with mode of delivery, only the Vaginal Uncomplicated Delivery rate was correlated to the Adverse Delivery rate. Conclusions: Quality assurance in obstetrics must balance the needs of two patients based on limited data. Our data suggest that the prevailing performance indicator, Cesarean Delivery rate, fails in this respect because, it does not correlate with birth outcomes for the pregnant patient or infant. The Vaginal Uncomplicated Delivery rate, provides an alternative that correlates with both mode of delivery as a traditional indicator and labour outcomes. Shifting the quality lens to focus on Vaginal Uncomplicated Delivery rate will provide a better metric that measures optimal outcomes for pregnant people, and their babies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.315
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207