LETTER TO THE EDITOR In Response SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline on Vaginal Delivery of Breech Presentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: We appreciate Dr Hey’s interest in the new SOGCguideline for vaginal delivery of breech presenta-tion.1,2 The level I-A quality of evidence included the Term Breech Trial where it was stated that an experienced obste-trician had to be readily available for breech delivery. The Term Breech Trial demonstrated that the mode of delivery had no influence on outcome at two years of age.3 It would also make sense that a non-experienced individual should not perform unsupervised vaginal breech deliveries. We have been careful throughout the guideline to include other health care professionals in the performance of vaginal delivery. Since a Caesarean section may be required on an urgent basis, a surgeon or an obstetrician should be readily available for the performance of this procedure. It is legiti-mate to ask how we should define an experienced accoucheur for vaginal delivery of breech presentation. A reasonable answer is likely the performance of at least 30 to 40 vaginal deliveries of breech presentation. With an estimated 10 000 women per year in Canada with breech presentation, we believe sufficient experience to be available across the country to provide a safe introduction of vaginal delivery of breech presentation across the country before it is too late.
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 | 0.004 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".