MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1769752269 · doi:10.7863/jum.2012.31.4.577

Resolution of Complete Placenta Previa

2012· article· en· W1769752269 on OpenAlexaff
Ann Lal, Jessica Nyholm, Joseph R. Wax, Carl H. Rose, William J. Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlacenta previaMedicinePlacentaObstetricsCesarean deliveryProspective cohort studyPlacenta DiseasesPregnancySecond trimesterGynecologySurgeryGestationFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to prospectively assess the rate of resolution of complete placenta previa diagnosed at second-trimester sonography in patients with and without previous cesarean delivery. METHODS: This prospective study evaluated patients at 3 institutions with complete placenta previa diagnosed at second-trimester screening sonography. All patients were followed with sonography every 4 to 6 weeks until either resolution of the previa or delivery occurred. Patients with persistent/nonresolving complete placenta previa underwent cesarean delivery. RESULTS: A total of 67 patients were enrolled in the study; 18 patients had a prior cesarean delivery. Resolution of placenta previa occurred in 11 of 18 patients (61%) with a prior cesarean delivery, whereas 44 of 49 patients (90%) without a prior cesarean delivery had resolution of placenta previa (P = .012, Fisher exact test). Placental location per se (anterior or posterior) was not associated with resolution of placenta previa (P = .22). Complete placenta previa persisted to delivery in 5 of 9 patients (56%) with a prior cesarean delivery and an anterior placental location. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study indicates that patients with a prior cesarean delivery and complete placenta previa diagnosed at second-trimester sonography are less likely to have subsequent resolution of the previa when compared to those without a history of cesarean delivery.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ultrasound in MedicineSame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207