Perinatal outcomes after selective third‐trimester ultrasound screening for small‐for‐gestational age: prospective cohort study nested within <scp>DESiGN</scp> randomized controlled trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT Objective In screening for small‐for‐gestational age (SGA) using third‐trimester antenatal ultrasound, there are concerns about the low detection rates and potential for harm caused by both false‐negative and false‐positive screening results. Using a selective third‐trimester ultrasound screening program, this study aimed to investigate the incidence of adverse perinatal outcomes among cases with (i) false‐negative compared with true‐positive SGA diagnosis and (ii) false‐positive compared with true‐negative SGA diagnosis. Methods This prospective cohort study was nested within the UK‐based DESiGN trial, a prospective multicenter cohort study of singleton pregnancies without antenatally detected fetal anomalies, born at > 24 + 0 to < 43 + 0 weeks' gestation. We included women recruited to the baseline period, or control arm, of the trial who were not exposed to the Growth Assessment Protocol intervention and whose birth outcomes were known. Stillbirth and major neonatal morbidity were the two primary outcomes. Minor neonatal morbidity was considered a secondary outcome. Suspected SGA was defined as an estimated fetal weight (EFW) < 10th percentile, based on the Hadlock formula and fetal growth charts. Similarly, SGA at birth was defined as birth weight (BW) < 10th percentile, based on UK population references. Maternal and pregnancy characteristics and perinatal outcomes were reported according to whether SGA was suspected antenatally or not. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models were used to quantify the differences in adverse perinatal outcomes between the screening results (false negative vs true positive and false positive vs true negative). Results In total, 165 321 pregnancies were included in the analysis. Fetuses with a false‐negative SGA screening result, compared to those with a true‐positive result, were at a significantly higher risk of stillbirth (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.18 (95% CI, 1.07–1.31)), but at lower risk of major (aOR, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83–0.91)) and minor (aOR, 0.56, (95% CI, 0.54–0.59)) neonatal morbidity. Compared with a true‐negative screening result, a false‐positive result was associated with a lower BW percentile (median, 18.1 (interquartile range (IQR), 13.3–26.9) vs 49.9 (IQR, 30.3–71.7)). A false‐positive result was also associated with a significantly increased risk of stillbirth (aOR, 2.24 (95% CI, 1.88–2.68)) and minor neonatal morbidity (aOR, 1.60 (95% CI, 1.51–1.71)), but not major neonatal morbidity (aOR, 1.04 (95% CI, 0.98–1.09)). Conclusions In selective third‐trimester ultrasound screening for SGA, both false‐negative and false‐positive results were associated with a significantly higher risk of stillbirth, when compared with true‐positive and true‐negative results, respectively. Improved SGA detection is needed to address false‐negative results. It should be acknowledged that cases with a false‐positive SGA screening result also constitute a high‐risk population of small fetuses that warrant surveillance and timely birth. © 2024 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
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 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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 ».