Comparison of terbutaline and atosiban as tocolytic agents in intrauterine repair of myelomeningocele: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Myelomeningocele (MMC) is a neural tube defect disease. Antenatal repair of fetal MMC is an alternative to postnatal repair. Many agents can be used as tocolytics during the in utero fetal repair such as β2-agonists and oxytocin receptor antagonists, with possible maternal and fetal repercussions. This study aims to compare maternal arterial blood gas analysis between terbutaline or atosiban, as tocolytic agents, during intrauterine MMC repair. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into two groups depending on the main tocolytic agent used during intrauterine MMC repair: atosiban (16) or terbutaline (9). Maternal arterial blood gas samples were analyzed on three moments: post induction (baseline, before the start of tocolysis), before extubation, and two hours after the end of the surgery. RESULTS: , for atosiban, p = 0.001) levels. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received terbutaline had more acidosis and higher levels of lactate, compared to those who received atosiban, during intrauterine fetal MMC repair.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".