ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Data-Driven Insights into Labor Progression with Gaussian Processes.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- New labor curves of dilation and station to improve the accuracy of predicting labor progress.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Clinicians routinely perform pelvic examinations to assess the progress of labor. Clinical guidelines to interpret these examinations, using time-based models of cervical dilation, are not always followed and have not contributed to reducing cesarean-section rates. We present a novel Gaussian process model of labor progress, suitable for real-time use, that predicts cervical dilation and fetal station based on clinically relevant predictors available from the pelvic exam and cardiotocography. We show that the model is more accurate than a statistical approach using a mixed-effects model. In addition, it provides confidence estimates on the prediction, calibrated to the specific delivery. Finally, we show that predicting both dilation and station with a single Gaussian process model is more accurate than two separate models with single predictions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.