Characterizing the Patient Experience of Idiopathic Subglottic Stenosis in Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective To characterize surgical interventions in pregnancy and postpartum periods and compare them to baseline periods (outside of pregnancy/postpartum) for patients with idiopathic subglottic stenosis (iSGS). Methods A retrospective chart review was performed for patients undergoing endoscopic treatment for iSGS during pregnancy, postpartum, and baseline periods at The Cleveland Clinic between July 1, 2000 and January 1, 2025. Data collected included disease characteristics, surgery characteristics, and pregnancy history. The primary endpoint was the surgical interval between surgical interventions, defined as the number of days until the following surgical intervention during pregnancy, postpartum, and baseline periods. Results Nine patients were included in the analysis. Among these patients, there were 17 term deliveries, 1 pre‐term delivery, 2 miscarriages, and 2 terminations. There was no statistically significant difference in the surgical interval for patients undergoing surgery during pregnancy when compared to their surgical interval in the one‐year postpartum period ( p = 0.69) or when compared to the same patients' baseline surgical interval ( p = 0.69). Four patients (45%) experienced more surgical interventions following a pregnancy as compared to before pregnancy. Conclusion Surgical management of iSGS is safe during pregnancy, and although we observed no significant difference in the surgical interval during pregnancy, postpartum, and baseline periods, four patients did require more surgical interventions after pregnancy, highlighting the importance of counseling patients on the potential risk of iSGS recurrence after pregnancy and closely monitoring these patients during the postpartum period. Level of Evidence IV.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".