Reference values for differences between cardio‐circulatory variables of normal twin fetuses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No reference values exist concerning the differences between cardio-circulatory variables of normal twin fetuses. The normal data could be useful in the identification of conditions causing opposite hemodynamic effects on each twin. OBJECTIVE: To establish the normal differences among cardio-circulatory parameters of twin fetuses during the second and third trimesters of gestation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven normal twin pregnancies were used in this longitudinal and prospective study. Doppler-echocardiographic investigations were performed every 2-3 weeks starting at an average of 23.11 +/- 3.13 (mean +/- standard deviation) weeks' gestation. At each visit, the following cardio-circulatory variables were evaluated: the cardio-thoracic ratio, the ventricular wall and septal thicknesses, end-diastolic and systolic diameters, ventricular fractional shortenings, velocity of circumferential fibre shortenings and left and right ventricular outputs. In addition the following measurements were made from Doppler recordings: through both aortic and pulmonary valve the acceleration and ejection times, the peak systolic velocities and the velocity time integrals; and through both mitral and tricuspid valves peak velocities of E and A waves and the E/A ratios. Finally the pulsatility index of the umbilical artery was also evaluated. RESULTS: There was no single variable where the intertwin difference changed with gestational age. No systematic difference between the smaller and larger twin could be demonstrated for any variables except for the cardio-thoracic ratio. CONCLUSION: Reference tables should permit a comparative approach between the two twins in the investigation of life threatening complications such as twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".