MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413753462 · doi:10.1055/a-2682-6209

Severe Neonatal Morbidity in Forceps versus Vacuum Birth among Individuals with Previous Cesarean Birth: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study

2025· article· en· W4413753462 on OpenAlexaff
Irina Oltean, Abirami Kirubarajan, Vanessa Hébert, Elizabeth Darling, Rohan D’Souza, Giulia M. Muraca

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Perinatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical CentreImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyForcepsObstetricsCohort studyCohortPopulationPediatricsSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We sought to compare severe neonatal morbidity associated with forceps versus vacuum birth among individuals with prior cesarean birth.We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using data on all full term, singleton, cephalic vaginal births among individuals with prior cesarean birth in the United States (2014-2021). The exposure was operative vaginal birth (forceps vs. vacuum) and the primary outcome was composite severe neonatal morbidity, defined as assisted ventilation > 6 hours, neonatal seizures, and Apgar score < 4 at 5 minutes. We primarily compared the distribution of severe neonatal morbidity among operative vaginal births by instrument (forceps compared with vacuum) and fit multivariable logistic regression models to obtain adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for severe neonatal morbidity in forceps versus vacuum births while accounting for confounders.The study population included 531,440 births. The rate of severe neonatal morbidity was 0.7% with spontaneous vaginal birth, 1.6% with forceps, and 1.3% with vacuum. Adjusted models showed higher rates of severe neonatal morbidity with forceps versus vacuum birth, but this association was not statistically significant (AOR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.96, 1.50). Analysis of each component of the severe neonatal morbidity composite showed a 39% higher odds of assisted ventilation > 6 hours (AOR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.80) in forceps compared with vacuum births.Rates of severe neonatal morbidity are higher following operative versus spontaneous vaginal births with no difference based on type of instrument (forceps or vacuum). The choice between instrument should depend on the clinical situation, patient preference, and the experience, skill, and comfort of the operator. · Rates of severe neonatal morbidity are higher following operative versus spontaneous vaginal births.. · No difference in severe neonatal morbidity exists based on type of instrument (forceps or vacuum).. · The choice between instrument should depend on the clinical situation and patient preference..

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PerinatologySame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207