The association between perineal trauma and spontaneous perineal tears.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether women who had a perineal trauma (episiotomy or spontaneous tear of the second degree or higher) at the first delivery were at increased risk for spontaneous perineal tears at the next delivery, and whether the risk increases with the severity of previous perineal trauma. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. POPULATION: We included data from 1895 women who had their first and second deliveries at Saint-Sacrement Hospital, Quebec City, Canada, between 1985 and 1994. Our study was restricted to women who gave birth vaginally to a single living neonate at their first 2 deliveries and who did not have an episiotomy at the second delivery. We extracted the data from the Department of Obstetrics computerized database. OUTCOMES MEASURED: Spontaneous perineal tears (of second degree or higher) at the second delivery. RESULTS: Having a perineal trauma at the first delivery more than tripled the risk (relative risk=3.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.6-4.2) of spontaneous perineal tears at the second delivery. The risk of spontaneous perineal tears at the second delivery increased with the severity of previous perineal trauma at birth. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the risk of spontaneous perineal tears at subsequent deliveries increases with the presence and the severity of perineal trauma at the first delivery.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".