ArticleScientific reports2024
Circadian characteristics of term and preterm labors.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reference Genes for Circadian Profiling of Core Clock Genes in the Blood of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patients.Biomolecules · 2026Article
- Circadian rhythm characteristics of spontaneous labor onset in full-term primiparas and its impact on maternal and neonatal outcomes.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- The Effects of Meteorological Conditions on the Circadian Rhythm of Births.American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council · 2025Article
- Risk Profiles and Outcomes of Uterine Rupture: A Retrospective and Comparative Single-Center Study of Complete and Partial Ruptures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Molecular Links Between Circadian Rhythm Disruption, Melatonin, and Neurodegenerative Diseases: An Updated Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Effects of the sampling time on the vaginal microbiota in healthy pregnant women: a prospective observational study.AJOG global reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The labor is a physiological event considered to have its own circadian (diurnal) rhythm, but some of the data remain conflicting, especially for preterm births. In this retrospective study, we analyzed the circadian trends of labor onset times in the Slovenian birth cohort from 1990 to 2018 with over 550,000 cases of singleton births. The number of term and preterm labor onsets was calculated for each hour in a day and circadian trends were evaluated for each of the study groups by modeling with a generalized Poisson distribution linked with the cosinor regression model using logarithmic link function. The induced labors were taken as the control group since the timing of labor depends mostly on the working schedule of personnel and not on the intrinsic rhythmic characteristics. For induced labors, the main peak in the number of labor cases was observed in the late morning hours (around 10 AM) for all gestational ages. The prominence of this peak becomes smaller in spontaneous premature labors with gradually disrupting rhythmicity in very preterm and extremely preterm cases. Labors starting with spontaneous contractions peak between 6 and 7 AM and lose the rhythmicity at 35 weeks of gestation while labors starting with a spontaneous rupture of membranes peak at 1 AM and lose the rhythmicity at 31 weeks of gestation, suggesting differences in underlying mechanisms. According to our knowledge, this is the first study that shows differences of circadian trends between different types of spontaneous labors, i.e., labors initiated with contraction and labors initiated with a spontaneous rupture of membranes. Moreover, the obtained results represent evidence of gradual disruption of rhythmicity from mild to extreme prematurity.
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.