MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Birth by Caesarean section and female offspring’s risk of Caesarean section delivery

2025· article· en· W4409378330 on OpenAlexafffund
Stefan Kuhle, Mary M. Brown, Victoria M. Allen, Jillian Ashley‐Martin, Linda Dodds, Christy Woolcott

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Epidemiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaDalhousie University
FundersIWK Health Centre
KeywordsCaesarean sectionMedicineObstetricsSection (typography)OffspringCaesarean deliveryPregnancyGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to examine the association of birth by Caesarean section (CS) with female offspring's risk of CS delivery. METHODS: We used data from the 3G Multigenerational Cohort, which includes women whose births and their own subsequent pregnancies and deliveries were recorded in the population-based Nova Scotia Atlee Perinatal Database. The current analysis was limited to the women's first delivery (n = 23,605). Confounding variables were identified using a directed acyclic graph. The association between birth by CS and later CS delivery was examined with Poisson regression adjusted for confounding variables. RESULTS: Seventeen percent of women were born via CS, and 23 % delivered by CS. Compared to women born vaginally, women born by CS had an adjusted relative risk (RR) of 1.36 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.30, 1.43) for delivering by CS. Restricting the sample to women born to nulliparous mothers did not change the association (RR 1.35), while restriction to women born out of low-risk pregnancies weakened it slightly (RR 1.25). CONCLUSIONS: Birth by CS is associated with a 36 % increased risk of women delivering their first child by CS. This increase is likely due to shared medical and socio-cultural factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of EpidemiologySame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207