Obstetric Outcomes Across Second to Fourth Labors: Are Low Multiparas Truly Low Risk?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The association between parity and adverse outcomes has been a concern for decades; however, attention to the subgroups of low multiparity has not been adequately studied. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted to examine the differences in maternal and neonatal outcomes among low-level multiparity subgroups, specifically women in their second, third, and fourth labors, who delivered between January 2012 and December 2016. Pregnancy outcomes were compared based on parity (second, third, and fourth labor). Results: A total of 1584 women were evaluated, of which 904 (57%) were in their second labor, 499 (31.5%) were in their third labor, and 181 (11.5%) were in their fourth labor. Women undergoing their second labor were younger than those in their third or fourth labors (29.6 vs. 32.3 or 32.7 years, respectively; p < 0.0001). Moreover, epidural analgesia was more common among women in their second labor compared to women in their third or fourth labor (70.0% vs. 59.5% or 52%, respectively; p < 0.0001). Women in their second labor were more likely to have a longer labor, compared to women in their third or fourth labor (8.50 vs. 7.46 and 6.24 hours, respectively; p < 0.05), and to have a higher rate of cesarean delivery (CD) compared to those in their third or fourth labor (13.2% vs. 7.8% or 6.1%, respectively; both cases, p < 0.01). There were no statistical differences in the rate of adverse outcomes between the third and fourth labor groups. Conclusions: Women in their second labor were more likely to have longer labor durations and a higher risk of CD compared to women in their third or fourth labor. No difference in rates of adverse outcomes was noted between the third and fourth labors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".