Maternal and neonatal outcomes of membrane stripping in rural canadian group B Streptococcus-colonized pregnancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the safety of membrane sweeping in Group B Streptococcus-positive pregnancies by assessing maternal and neonatal surrogate outcomes in a rural, midwifery-led birth center. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted for 67 Group B Streptococcus-positive pregnant women under midwife care-31 who received membrane stripping and 36 who did not-were analyzed using data from the birth center's database and Medesync hospital records. RESULTS: No early-onset neonatal Group B Streptococcus cases were reported. Membrane stripping showed no association with intrapartum transfers (p > 0.99) or reasons for transfer (p = 0.13). Apgar scores at 1, 5, and 10 min were unaffected (p = 0.37, 0.81, 0.80). Mean gestational age was higher with membrane stripping (40.2 vs. 39.4 weeks, p = 0.02, d = 0.62), though not clinically significant. Higher birth weight in the membrane stripping group (3663.0 g vs. 3394.8 g, p = 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.63) was similarly not clinically significant. No effects were observed on birth type (p > 0.99), feeding type at 72 h or 6 weeks (p = 0.82, p > 0.99), transfer after 32 weeks (p = 0.36), or maternal and neonatal clinical notes (p = 0.29, p > 0.99). Potential confounders like gravida, para, abortus status (p = 0.79, p = 0.20, p = 0.26), prior cesarean section (p = 0.99), and maternal age (p = 0.69) did not affect outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Membrane stripping was not associated with adverse maternal or neonatal surrogate outcomes in Group B Streptococcus-positive pregnancies. These findings support its potential safety, though larger multi-center studies are needed to inform clinical guidelines.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".