MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P29The effectiveness of antenatal ultrasound in the detection of facial clefts

2000· article· en· W2000088594 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Charlotte Cash, P. Set, Nicholas Coleman

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCleft Lip and Palate Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity Health Network
KeywordsMedicineUltrasoundObstetricsPopulationFetusRetrospective cohort studyPrenatal diagnosisPediatricsPregnancyRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of antenatal ultrasound in the detection of facial clefts in a low risk screening population. Design This retrospective study covered a five year period from January 1993 to December 1997. From the study of antenatal, postnatal surgical and pathological records, a complete number of second trimestre fetuses with a cleft defect was identified. Correlation was made with the routine 18–20 week anomaly ultrasound examination in order to assess accuracy of diagnosis. Results After necessary exclusions there were 26 fetuses with cleft defects out of 23 577 live and stillbirths. The defect was detected in 17 of these 26 cases (65%). In 12 of these 17 (70.5%) the antenatal diagnosis was completely accurate, in the remaining 5 cases part of the defect was not detected. Conclusion In a low risk population it is possible to detect approximately two thirds of all fetuses with a cleft lip or palate. With the increasing emphasis on clinical governance, this study helps to set an achievable standard.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasound in Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicCleft Lip and Palate ResearchFrench-language works237,207