Frozen Section of Placental Membranes and Umbilical Cord
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We devised a rapid frozen section (FS) assessment technique of placental tissues and performed the first rigorous assessment of FS relative to conventional workup. METHODS: We evaluated 49 placentas with clinical/gross suspicion of intra-amniotic infection by FS. Relative to formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissues, we compared the grading, staging, and interobserver variability. RESULTS: FS assessment demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.77-0.97) and a specificity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.36-0.80) for the presence of chorioamnionitis and a sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.75-0.96) and a specificity of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.42-0.87) for the presence of funisitis. The χ2 goodness of fit for grade and stage in both placental membrane and umbilical cord sections was significant (P<.001). There was no significant difference in interobserver variability in comparison with permanent section results (P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that FS is a reasonably sensitive screening technique, correlating well with conventional assessment, without significantly different interobserver variability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".