MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971616212 · doi:10.3109/14767058.2012.746307

Normal ascent of the conus medullaris: a post-mortem foetal MRI study

2012· article· en· W1971616212 on OpenAlexaff
Owen J. Arthurs, Sudhin Thayyil, Angela Wade, W.K. Chong, Neil J. Sebire, Andrew M. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
FundersNational Institutes of HealthWellbeing of WomenNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsConus medullarisConusGestationMedicineAnatomyConfidence intervalLumbarMagnetic resonance imagingSpinal cordPregnancyRadiologyBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The position of the conus medullaris is considered abnormal if it ends below lumbar vertebrae three (L3) at birth. We used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to measure the position of the conus in post-mortem foetuses, to investigate the timing of normal ascent. METHODS: The position of the conus in 84 post-mortem foetuses (mean gestation 26.3 weeks; range 14-41 weeks) was identified using 3D MRI datasets. A numerical scale was used for vertebral levels, from 1 (S2) to 15 (T12). RESULTS: There was significant ascent of the conus medullaris with increasing gestation. At 20 weeks gestation, an estimated 84.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 72.9, 93.2%) of foetuses have a conus position of L4/5 or higher, but only 22.8% (95% CI 11.7, 34.9%) at L3 or higher. By 26 weeks, an estimated 50.7% (95% CI 34.1, 67.5) will have reached L3, and 94.8% (95% CI 87.0, 98.5%) reach L3 by 40 weeks. CONCLUSION: There is regular ascent of the conus throughout foetal life. Although growth for each individual foetus may be non-linear, most foetuses have a conus level within the normal adult range by 33 weeks gestation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations33
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal MedicineSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207