Validity of Inter-rectus Distance Measurement in Postpartum Women Using Extended Field-of-View Ultrasound Imaging Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Reliability and validity study. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the criterion-related validity and reliability of inter-rectus distance (IRD) measurement using extended field-of-view (FOV) techniques during ultrasound imaging (USI) in parous women. BACKGROUND: Ultrasound imaging is the gold standard for noninvasive IRD measurement in parous women when investigating diastasis recti; however, its use is limited when IRD is large. Extended FOV techniques (panoramic USI or using acoustic standoff pads) allow complete visualization of the linea alba when the IRD is large and conventional imaging is not sufficient; however, the validity of using these techniques has never been investigated. METHODS: Two-dimensional ultrasound images were acquired at the superior umbilical border from 21 women using conventional USI, panoramic USI, and a standoff pad. Five images were captured using each method. Inter-rectus distance was measured offline. Criterion-related validity was investigated using repeated-measures analyses of variance to test for bias, and linear regression models, Pearson correlation coefficients (r), and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to assess agreement. Standard error of the measurement for each extended FOV technique was calculated. The between-trial reliability of each technique was determined using ICCs. RESULTS: Inter-rectus distance from images acquired using extended FOV techniques did not differ from values acquired using conventional USI (P = .441). Images acquired using extended FOV techniques were highly correlated with those acquired using conventional imaging (r>0.95, P<.0001). The standard error of the measurement of each extended FOV technique was 0.17 to 0.18 cm. The between-trial reliability of all techniques was excellent (ICC(3,1)>0.90). CONCLUSION: Panoramic USI and acoustic standoff pads are valid methods of increasing FOV to measure IRD. In this study, USI measurements were limited to IRDs of less than or equal to 3 finger widths, based on palpation.
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 | 0.017 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".