Procedural abortion, provider‐initiated preterm delivery and survival in pregnant people with cancer: A population‐based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether procedural-induced abortion or provider-initiated preterm delivery are associated with improved survival in pregnant people with cancer. DESIGN: Retrospective population-based cohort study. SETTING: Provinces of Alberta and Ontario, Canada, 2003-2016. POPULATION: Females aged 18-50 years diagnosed with cancer at <20 weeks' (for the assessment of procedural-induced abortion) or <37 weeks' gestation (for the assessment of provider-initiated delivery). METHODS: Cox proportional hazard models assessed all-cause mortality in relation to procedural-induced abortion and provider-initiated preterm delivery, adjusting for cancer site, stage at diagnosis and age. Meta-analysis pooled the results across both provinces. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All cause mortality. RESULTS: There were 512 pregnant people diagnosed with cancer at <20 weeks' gestation and 782 diagnosed with cancer at <37 weeks' gestation. Neither procedural-induced abortion (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.39, 95% CI: 0.32-6.17) nor provider-initiated preterm delivery (aHR = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.76-1.81) were associated with improved survival following adjustment for age, stage at diagnosis and cancer site. CONCLUSIONS: Neither procedural-induced abortion nor provider-initiated preterm birth was associated with improved survival in pregnant people diagnosed with cancer; however, these obstetric interventions are highly personal decisions best decided by the pregnant person in consultation with their care providers.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".