MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408529089 · doi:10.1038/s41366-024-01709-x

Risk associated with planned mode of delivery in women with obesity: a large population-based retrospective cohort study

2025· article· en· W4408529089 on OpenAlexafffund
Geneviève Horwood, Erica Erwin, Yanfang Guo, Brian C. Aston, Sara C. S. Souza, Laura Gaudet

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Obesity · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityOntario Stroke NetworkOttawa HospitalKingston Health Sciences CentreUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineObesityRetrospective cohort studyBody mass indexPopulationCohortCohort studyDemographyEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: As the pregnancy progresses, a decision about planned mode of delivery must be made. There is no consensus on optimal mode of delivery among pregnant women with obesity. We aimed to assess the risks associated with planned mode of delivery in women with obesity. METHODS: This large population-based retrospective cohort study included 27472 nulliparous women with obesity who had live, singleton, and uncomplicated term gestations between April 1st 2012 and March 31st 2019. Planned mode of delivery included waiting for spontaneous labor, a plan for induction of labor, and planned non-labor cesarean section (NLCS). NLCS was defined as an elective CS that would happen before the pregnant woman goes into labor. The most common reasons for NLCS include maternal request, fetal position, and repeated CS. Adverse Outcome Index (AOI) was the primary outcome, a binary composite of 10 maternal-neonatal outcomes. Overall, maternal-specific, and neonatal-specific AOI scores were analyzed. Analyses were conducted using multivariable regression models and were stratified by each week of gestational age and by obesity class. RESULTS: Planned NLCS was associated with reduced risk of overall, maternal-specific, and neonatal-specific AOI by 41% (adjusted risk ratio [aRR]: 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50-0.70), 54% (aRR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.35-0.60), and 30% (aRR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.57-0.87) respectively when compared to spontaneous labor at term gestation. There was no statistically significant difference in overall AOI when comparing planned induction of labor to spontaneous labor (aRR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.96-1.10). CONCLUSION: Among women with obesity, NLCS may be considered as an option for planned mode of delivery due to the decreased AOI risk. However, further research on the association between NLCS and severe outcomes is needed. Shared decision making between patient and practitioner regarding plan for delivery remains paramount in the provision of quality obstetrical care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ObesitySame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207