MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pulse wave analysis: a preliminary study of a novel technique for the prediction of pre‐eclampsia

2008· article· en· W2001255651 on OpenAlexaff
AA Khalil, D. J. Cooper, K. Harrington

Bibliographic record

VenueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsSt Mary's Hospital Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEclampsiaPulse (music)Pulse Wave AnalysisPulse waveComputer scienceTelecommunicationsPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether first-trimester arterial pulse wave analysis (PWA) can predict pre-eclampsia. DESIGN: This was a prospective screening study. SETTING: The Homerton University Hospital, a London teaching hospital. POPULATION: Two hundred and ten low-risk women with a singleton pregnancy were analysed. METHODS: Radial artery pulse waveforms were measured between the 11(+0) and 13(+6) weeks of gestation and the aortic waveform derived by applying a generalised transfer function. Augmentation pressure (AP) and augmentation index at heart rate of 75 beats per minute (AIx-75), measures of arterial stiffness, were calculated. The multiple of the gestation-specific median in controls for AP and AIx-75 were calculated. Logistic regression models were developed and their predictive ability assessed using the area under the receiver operator curve. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prediction of pre-eclampsia by AIx-75. RESULTS: Fourteen (6.7%) women developed pre-eclampsia, and 196 remained normotensive. Eight of the 14 women developed pre-eclampsia before 34 weeks of gestation (early-onset pre-eclampsia). For a false-positive rate of 11%, AIx-75 had a detection rate of 79% for all cases of pre-eclampsia and 88% for early-onset pre-eclampsia. CONCLUSION: First-trimester arterial PWA can play a significant role in understanding the pathophysiology of pre-eclampsia and may play a role in early screening.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.258 · 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.

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

Citations83
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & GynaecologySame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207