PRIMARY POSTPARTUM HEMORRHAGE IN AUGMENTED LABOUR: A STUDY OF NORMAL VAGINAL DELIVERIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: One of the important and life-threatening complications encountered during labor is bleeding. This study is to estimate the frequency of Primary Postpartum Hemorrhage after augmented labor in normal vaginal delivery in our population because previously no data is available for blood loss after augmentation of labor during spontaneous delivery. Objective: To Determine the Frequency of Primary Postpartum Hemorrhage after augmented labor in normal Vaginal delivery. Material and Methods: Over the course of six months, a descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out at the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department of the Qazi Hussain Ahmad Medical Complex in Nowshera. All deliveries were conducted by trainee medical officers. The slow/obstructed labor was augmented by oxytocin infusion at the rate of 12ml/hour, which was titrated by 12ml/hour every 30 minutes to a max of 192ml/hour till the baby was delivered. The frequency of primary PPH was noted as per the operational definition. Data obtained was noted on the Performa. Results: Our study shows that among 151 patients, the mean age was 27 years with SD ± 7.02. Fifty-seven (37%) patients were Primigravida, and ninety-four (62.3%) patients were multi-para. Sixty-two (41.1%) patients had POG 37-38 weeks, and Eighty-nine (59.9%) patients had POG 39-41 weeks. Eighteen (12%) patients had primary PPH after augmentation, and one hundred thirty-three (88%) patients didn’t have primary PPH after augmentation. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the frequency of primary PPH is significantly higher than expected in augmented labour following normal vaginal deliveries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".