Risk of Cesarean Delivery Among People With Inflammatory Bowel Disease According to Disease Characteristics: A Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: It is unclear if use of cesarean delivery in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is guideline-concordant. We compared the odds of cesarean delivery among primiparous individuals with IBD versus without, overall, and by disease characteristics, as well as time to subsequent delivery. METHODS: Retrospective matched population-based cohort study between 1 April 1994 and 31 March 2020. Primiparous individuals aged 15-55 years with IBD were matched to those without IBD on age, year, hospital, and number of newborns delivered. Primary outcome was cesarean delivery versus vaginal delivery. Multivariable conditional logistic regression analyses were performed to estimate the odds of cesarean delivery among individuals with and without IBD as a binary exposure, and a categorical exposure based on IBD-related indications for cesarean delivery. Time to subsequent delivery was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: We matched 7472 individuals with IBD to 37 360 individuals without (99.02% match rate). Individuals with IBD were categorised as having perianal (PA) disease (IBD-PA, n = 764, 10.2%), prior ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (n = 212, 2.8%), or IBD-Other (n = 6496, 86.9%). Cesarean delivery rates were 35.4% in the IBD group versus 30.4% in their controls (adjusted odds ratio 1.27; 95% CI 1.20-1.34). IBD-ileal pouch-anal anastomosis had a cesarean delivery rate of 66.5%, compared to 49.9% in IBD-PA and 32.7% in IBD-Other. There was no significant difference in the rate of subsequent delivery in those with and without IBD (adjusted hazard ratio 1.03; 95% CI 1-1.07). CONCLUSIONS: The higher risk of cesarean delivery in people with IBD reflects guideline-concordant use. Individuals with and without IBD were equally likely to have a subsequent delivery with similar timing.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".