MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981857623 · doi:10.1002/pd.736

Transcervical fetoscopic diagnosis of structural defects in four first‐trimester monochorionic twin intrauterine deaths

2003· article· en· W1981857623 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Philipp, Evica Rajcan Separovic, K Philipp, Angelika Reiner, Dagmar K. Kalousek

Bibliographic record

VenuePrenatal Diagnosis · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonochorionic twinsFetoscopyObstetricsPregnancyMedicineIntrauterine growth restrictionTwin PregnancyConcordancePrenatal diagnosisTrisomyFetusBiologyGeneticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: While chromosomal abnormalities are often the cause of early failed pregnancies, other mechanisms could be involved in monochorionic twin intrauterine deaths, that might be screened for careful morphological analysis. METHODS: Transcervical fetoscopy prior to instrumental evacuation of the uterus was performed in four first-trimester monochorionic twin intrauterine deaths. RESULTS: We present fetoscopic and cytogenetic findings in four cases of monochorionic twin intrauterine deaths. In the first, generalized abnormal embryonic development observed in both twins was a manifestation of trisomy 20. The second (thoracophagus) and third (acardius) pair of twins had anomalies peculiar to multiple gestations. The fourth pair of twins was remarkable because of the concordance for the observed limb-reduction defects. CONCLUSION: Malformations of first-trimester monochorionic twin intrauterine deaths might cover a wide spectrum of etiologies from abnormal chromosomes and single gene defects to rare duplication anomalies. Their detection by careful morphological analysis and the identification of a specific mechanism provides valuable information for genetic counseling and prenatal investigation in a future pregnancy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrenatal DiagnosisSame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207