MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

P89A longitudinal study of computerized cardiotocography in pregnancies with absent or reversed end‐diastolic velocity (AREDV) in the umbilical artery Doppler studies: preliminary results

2000· article· en· W2001834917 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Débora Simões Steinman, R. M. Yamamoto, Rossana Pulcineli Vieira Francisco, Seizo Miyadahira, Marcelo Zugaib

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity Health Network
KeywordsMedicineCardiotocographyUmbilical arteryObstetricsFetusIncidence (geometry)Fetal deathCardiologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background A study of computerized cardiotocography (CTG) results in pregnancies with AREDV. Methods Forty‐eight computerized CTGs of 13 AREDV cases were studied. All the patients were hospitalized after the AREDV diagnosis and submitted to intensive fetal vitality evaluation. Results From the 48 exams performed, 25 (52%) met Dawes/Redman's criteria, and the mean time of analysis was 31.7 ± 15.3 min. fhr decelerations were found in 1 (4%) of the 25 cases where the criteria were met and in 9 (39.1%) of the 23 cases where the criteria were unmet. Fetal death occurred in 2 cases. The results of the last CTG are shown in the table: pH < 7.20 or fetal death (n = 5) pH > 7.20 (n = 6) STV < 4.0 2 (40%) 1 (16.7%) Criteria unmet 4 (80%) 3 (50%) Conclusion The preliminary results show that, in AREDV cases, Dawes/Redman's criteria were not met in 47.9% of the exams performed. A high incidence of abnormalities (80%) was found in the computerized CTG in cases that presented acidosis at birth or fetal death.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 Gynecology→Same topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology→French-language works237,207→