MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414168420 · doi:10.1097/ede.0000000000001915

Use of Routinely Collected Data to Classify Planned Mode of Delivery Among Pregnancies With a Previous Cesarean Delivery: A Validation Study

2025· article· en· W4414168420 on OpenAlexaff
Mary M. Brown, Ya‐Hui Yu, Jennifer A. Hutcheon, Christy Woolcott, Victoria M. Allen, John Fahey, Irene Gagnon, Azar Mehrabadi

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsCancer Care Nova ScotiaDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationVaginal deliveryCesarean deliveryMode (computer interface)MEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Counseling on the harms and benefits of a planned vaginal versus a planned repeat cesarean delivery often relies on observational studies using routinely collected (or administrative) data. However, the accuracy of planned (rather than actual) mode of delivery classifications in such data remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the validity of an administrative data-based algorithm to identify planned vaginal and planned cesarean deliveries among individuals with a previous cesarean. METHODS: An algorithm based on diagnostic and procedural codes was applied to records from the Nova Scotia Atlee Perinatal Database. Included were individuals with a previous cesarean eligible for a trial of labor between 2017 and 2019. We compared the classification of planned mode of delivery using the algorithm with that determined through review of a random sample of 200 medical charts. We estimated sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Based on the chart review, 80 deliveries (40%) were planned vaginal deliveries. The algorithm had an estimated sensitivity of 99% (95% CI: 93%, 100%), specificity of 96% (95% CI: 91%, 99%), positive predictive value of 94% (95% CI: 87%, 98%), and negative predictive value of 99% (95% CI: 95%, 100%) for identifying planned vaginal deliveries. CONCLUSIONS: An algorithm based on routinely collected data accurately classified planned vaginal and planned cesarean deliveries among individuals with a previous cesarean. These findings suggest that studies using similar algorithms to inform counseling on planned mode of delivery in this population are minimally impacted by misclassification of this data.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiologySame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207