Transverse technique: complementary approach to measurement of first‐trimester uterine artery Doppler
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: To define a protocol for the first-trimester assessment of uterine artery pulsatility index (UtA-PI) using the new transverse technique, to evaluate UtA-PI measured using the transverse approach vs that obtained using the conventional sagittal approach and to determine if accelerated onsite training (in both methods) of inexperienced sonographers can achieve reproducible UtA-PI measurements comparable with those obtained by an experienced sonographer. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of women with a singleton pregnancy attending for routine combined first-trimester screening at 11 to 13 + 6 weeks' gestation. The study consisted of two parts, each conducted at a different center (Part 1 in Calgary, Canada and Part 2 in Hong Kong). In Part 1, UtA-PI measurements were performed using the transverse and sagittal techniques by four sonographers trained in both methods, in 10 cases each, and measurement indices (PI), time required and subjective difficulty in obtaining satisfactory measurements were compared. The one sample t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test were used when appropriate. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess measurement agreement, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate measurement reliability. A target plot was used to assess measures of central tendency and dispersion. In Part 2, one experienced and three inexperienced sonographers prospectively measured UtA-PI using both approaches in 42 and 35 women, respectively. Inexperienced sonographers underwent accelerated onsite training by the experienced sonographer. Measurement approach and sonographer order were on a random basis. ICC, Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablok analyses were performed to assess measurement agreement and reliability and effect of accelerated training. RESULTS: In Part 1, no difference was observed between the two techniques in mean time to acquire the measurements (118 s for sagittal vs 106 s for transverse; P = 0.38). The four sonographers reported that the transverse technique was subjectively easier to perform (P = 0.04). Bias and ICC for mean UtA-PI between sagittal and transverse measurements were -0.05 (95% limits of agreement, -0.48 to 0.37) and 0.94, respectively. Measurements obtained using the transverse technique after correcting for gestational age were significantly closer to the expected distribution than those obtained using the sagittal technique. In Part 2, there were no significant differences in median UtA-PI measured using the different approaches for both experienced and inexperienced sonographers (P > 0.05 for all sonographers). Mean UtA-PI measurement reliability between approaches was high for the experienced (ICC = 0.92) and inexperienced (ICC > 0.80) sonographers. UtA-PI measurement approaches did not deviate from linearity, while bias ranged from -0.10 to 0.07. The median time required was similar between the techniques (56.1 s for sagittal vs 49.3 s for transverse; P = 0.054). CONCLUSIONS: This novel transverse approach for the measurement of UtA-PI in the first trimester appears to be comparable with the sagittal approach in terms of reliability, reproducibility and time required, and may be easier to perform. Providing accelerated onsite training can be helpful for improving the reliability of UtA-PI measurements and could potentially facilitate the broad implementation of first-trimester pre-eclampsia screening. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».