Prenatal Management of Monoamniotic Twin Pregnancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate antenatal surveillance strategies and the optimal timing of delivery for monoamniotic twin pregnancies. METHODS: Obstetric and perinatal outcomes were retrospectively retrieved for 193 monoamniotic twin pregnancies. Fetal and neonatal outcomes were compared between fetuses followed in an inpatient setting and those undergoing intensive outpatient follow-up from 26 to 28 weeks of gestation until planned cesarean delivery between 32 and 35 weeks of gestation. The risk of fetal death was compared with the risk of neonatal complications. RESULTS: Fetal deaths occurred in 18.1% of fetuses (70/386). Two hundred ninety-five neonates from 153 pregnancies were born alive after 23 weeks of gestation. There were 17 neonatal deaths (5.8%), five of whom had major congenital anomalies. The prospective risk of a nonrespiratory neonatal complication was lower than the prospective risk of fetal death after 32 4/7 weeks of gestation (95% confidence interval 32 0/7-33 4/7). The incidence of death or a nonrespiratory neonatal complication was not significantly different between fetuses managed as outpatients (14/106 [13.2%]) or inpatients (15/142 [10.5%]; P=.55). Our statistical power to detect a difference in outcomes between these groups was low. CONCLUSIONS: The in utero risk of a monoamniotic twin fetus exceeds the risk of a postnatal nonrespiratory complication at 32 4/7 weeks of gestation. If close fetal surveillance is instituted after 26-28 weeks of gestation and delivery takes place at approximately 33 weeks of gestation, the risk of fetal or neonatal death is low, no matter the surveillance setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".