Effect of type III female genital mutilation on obstetric outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Controversial evidence suggests a potential association between female genital mutilation (FGM/C) and adverse obstetric outcomes, with type III FGM/C (infibulation) carrying the greatest risk. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess current rate of adverse obstetric outcomes in women with type III female genital mutilation and cutting (FGM/C; infibulation) delivering across different settings worldwide. Methods: statistic. Meta regression for relevant covariates was performed when data on relevant confounders were available. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to assess quality of observational studies. The level of evidence was assessed with the GRADE method. Results: = 0 %). No difference was found regarding obstetric anal sphincter injuries and mode of delivery in these women. Deinfibulation achieved similar obstetric and neonatal outcomes to women who never had type III FGM. The overall quality of the studies was adequate (median NOS score: 7; IQR: 6-8), the level of evidence, according to the GRADE assessment, was low. Conclusions: : PROSPERO CRD42023421993.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 it