MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991396615 · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000000599

The North American Fetal Therapy Network Consensus Statement

2014· editorial· en· W1991396615 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mert Ozan Bahtiyar, Stephen P. Emery, Jodi S. Dashe, Louise Wilkins‐Haug, Anthony Johnson, Bettina Paek, Anita J. Moon‐Grady, Daniel Skupski, Barbara O’Brien, Christopher Harman, Lynn L. Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2014
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralMultidisciplinary approachGestationPregnancyObstetricsIntensive care medicineFetusDiseasePediatricsFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because they share a common placenta, monochorionic gestations are subject to unique pregnancy complications that can threaten the life and health of both fetuses and therefore impose a disproportionate disease burden on overall perinatal morbidity and mortality. Early detection of these unique disease processes may allow for prompt referral to a regional treatment center, comprehensive counseling, and better patient outcomes. The North American Fetal Therapy Network is a consortium of 30 medical institutions in the United States and Canada with established expertise in fetal surgery and other forms of multidisciplinary care for complex fetal disorders. The goal of this publication is to briefly describe complications of monochorionic gestations and to provide multidisciplinary, evidence-based, and consensus-driven recommendations for surveillance of uncomplicated monochorionic gestations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0210.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.011

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations93
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrics and GynecologySame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207