Does gastric dilation predict adverse perinatal or surgical outcome in fetuses with gastroschisis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare perinatal and infant surgical outcomes in fetuses with gastroschisis with and without gastric dilation in a single-center cohort. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of all singleton pregnancies with a prenatal diagnosis of gastroschisis managed at University of Toronto perinatal centers between January 2001 and February 2010. Digital prenatal ultrasound images were reviewed to determine fetal gastric size within 2 weeks of delivery. Perinatal and surgical outcomes were compared in fetuses with and without gastric dilation including: gestational age at delivery, mode of delivery, indication for Cesarean section, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, birth weight percentile, Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min, umbilical artery pH, time to full enteral feeding, length of hospital stay, bowel atresia or necrosis and need for bowel resection. RESULTS: Ninety-eight fetuses with prenatally diagnosed gastroschisis managed at our center were included in the study, of which 32 (32.7%) were found to have gastric dilation. Gastric dilation predicted meconium-stained amniotic fluid at delivery (53% vs. 24%; P = 0.017), but no other adverse perinatal outcome. Surgical morbidity rates (bowel atresia, bowel necrosis, perforation diagnosed postnatally, need for bowel resection, total time to full enteral feeding and length of hospital stay) were unaffected by gastric dilation. CONCLUSIONS: In gastroschisis, fetal gastric dilation is associated with meconium-stained amniotic fluid at delivery, but is not predictive of any serious perinatal or postnatal complications. Fetal growth and well-being should be serially evaluated on ultrasound using biophysical and Doppler assessment to decide on the optimal timing and mode of delivery.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".