Resolution of Complete Placenta Previa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".