Twin–Twin Transfusion Syndrome: A Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the incidence and mortality and morbidity rates of twin-twin transfusion syndrome in a complete population-based cohort in Nova Scotia. METHODS: A population-based cohort study of all monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies of 20 weeks of gestation or longer born to Nova Scotia (Canada) residents between 1988 and 2000 was examined. The effect of gestational age adjustment and birth weight discordancy of more than 20% on mortality and 1-year survival was studied. Other outcomes studied included birth depression, respiratory distress syndrome, chronic lung disease, interventricular hemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, acute renal failure, and congestive heart failure. RESULTS: Of 404 monochorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies examined, 48 were identified with twin-twin transfusion syndrome. Total mortality rates per pregnancy were significantly greater in the twin-twin transfusion syndrome group than in the remainder of our monochorionic diamniotic population (P < .01). However, when adjusted for gestational age, mortality failed to achieve statistical significance. Similarly, no differences were noted for 1-year survival and other outcomes of liveborn infants after gestational age adjustment. Discordance in birth weight predicted a higher incidence of morbid outcomes per pregnancy, but this effect was lost after gestational age adjustment. CONCLUSION: Increased morbidity and mortality of twins with twin-twin transfusion syndrome is likely to be due to a higher incidence of preterm birth. Birth weight discordancy was not found to be an independent predictor of mortality after controlling for gestational age and twin-twin transfusion syndrome.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".