MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006959246 · doi:10.1017/s0965539504001299

IMPROVING THE DIAGNOSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF FETAL GROWTH RESTRICTION: THE RATIONALE FOR A PLACENTA CLINIC

2004· article· en· W2006959246 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vandana Chaddha, Wendy Whittle, John‏ Kingdom

Bibliographic record

VenueFetal and Maternal Medicine Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlacentaObstetricsFetusPregnancyFetal growthIntrauterine growth restrictionPlacenta accreta

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Successful pregnancy outcome depends on a co-coordinated series of events in development designed to attain normal placental function. The critical importance of placental vascular development is appreciated when a wide range of pregnancy complications including preterm labour (PTL), preterm premature rupture of the membranes (PPROM), pre-eclampsia (PE), fetal growth restriction (FGR), fetal demise (FD), and abruptio placenta (ABR) are all associated with restricted maternal and/or fetal blood flow, and secondary pathological lesions in the placental parenchyma. Other developmental defects of the placenta, such as its site (placenta praevia), extent of myometrial invasion (placenta accreta) or cord insertion (vasa praevia), may have major detrimental maternal and/or fetal effects if unrecognized during the antenatal period. In January 1999 we commenced a “Placenta Clinic” within the Fetal Medicine Unit at Mount Sinai Hospital (Toronto, Canada). Our rationale was that the early identification of many of these problems may, by facilitating appropriate multidisciplinary care and an elective delivery plan, reduce the attendant risks of maternal and perinatal morbidity and/or mortality due to placental malfunction.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFetal and Maternal Medicine ReviewSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207