Placental Release or Disposal? Experiences of Perinatal Pathologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Placentas have been often considered medical waste in hospitals. This view is particularly held by the patients themselves, who may not understand the importance of placental examination. Hospitals have been receiving requests for placental release to patients and need to be prepared to handle these requests. Therefore, a survey was conducted to explore the experiences and practices of perinatal pathologists with respect to placental release. Utilizing SurveyMonkey, we emailed a survey to 192 practicing perinatal pathologists in the United States and Canada. Questions were asked about policies in force at their particular institution, conditions of release, and the purpose of release, ie, what the disposition of the placenta was after release to the family. Thirty-six responses were received; 22 (61.1%) of respondents did allow release of placentas, and those who did not release usually reported that they had not received requests for release. In most cases, specific policies were in place, with multiple departments within the hospital having input on the creation of the policy. Parental signature was required in most cases. The most common reason for patient request was to bury the placenta, although some placental release was for consumption and/or encapsulation. Although there are no specific religious requirements for use or burial of the placenta after delivery, there are many cultural reasons for requests. Hospitals and specific providers need to be aware of this interest and have a specific policy in place so that they are prepared when a request is received.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".