Maternal and Neonatal Consequences of Early Augmentation of Labor Among Women With Spontaneous Onset of Labor: A National Population‐Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While some labor interventions are essential in preventing maternal and neonatal morbidity, there is little evidence to support systematic early augmentation of labor (EAL). Our objective was to assess the association between EAL and cesarean delivery rate, postpartum hemorrhage and adverse neonatal outcomes. METHODS: Population-based study using data from the 2016 French Perinatal Survey. Women with a singleton cephalic fetus, delivering at term after a spontaneous labor were included. "EAL" was defined by artificial rupture of the membranes (AROM) and/or oxytocin within 1 h of admission and/or duration between interventions of less than 1 h. Women without EAL were women without labor augmentation or without EAL. The primary endpoint, cesarean delivery and the secondary endpoints were compared between women with and without EAL using univariate analysis. A multivariable logistic regression was adjusted on the suspected confounders and a propensity score approach was then performed. RESULTS: Among the 7196 women included, 1524 (21.2%) had EAL. Cesarean delivery rates were significantly higher in the EAL group compared with the no EAL group, 8.40% versus 6.15% (p < 0.01). EAL was associated with cesarean delivery in the multivariable analysis aOR 1.45 95% CI [1.15-1.82] and in the cohort matched on the propensity score, OR 1.56 [1.17-2.07]. EAL was not associated with severe postpartum hemorrhage, low 5-min Apgar score, low neonatal cord pH or transfer to NICU. CONCLUSION: EAL is frequent, involving one in five spontaneous laboring women in France. This practice is associated with an increased cesarean delivery risk.
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 | 0.000 | 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".