MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008955807 · doi:10.3109/14767058.2014.905531

First trimester dating by fetal heart rate assessment: a comparison with crown-rump length measurement

2014· article· en· W2008955807 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Običan, Slava Khodak-Gelman, Angelo Elmi, John W. Larsen, Alexander Michael Friedman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrown-rump lengthRumpFetusObstetricsFetal heartFirst trimesterCrown (dentistry)MedicinePregnancyBiologyAnatomyOrthodontics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether fetal heart rate (FHR) can be used to date pregnancies in the early first trimester using the gold standard of crown-rump length (CRL) dating as a reference. METHODS: This single center study evaluated women undergoing obstetrical ultrasounds between 4.5 and 8.5 weeks. FHR and gestational age (GA) based on CRL were obtained. Linear regression analysis and a Bland-Altman plot were used to demonstrate the relationship between the two measurements. A further simplified version of the relationship between CRL and FHR that may be clinically useful was calculated. RESULTS: 176 patients were included in the study. The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.95, indicating a strong correlation between the two dating methods. The Bland-Altman plot demonstrated agreement across GA tested. A simple arithmetic formula of GA(weeks)=FHR (beats per minute)/20 was calculated. 169/176 patients had <4 days discrepancy between FHR- and CRL-based dating using this formula. CONCLUSION: We found that a simple formula based on FHR may accurately date early pregnancies. This method, if further validated, may represent an important tool for pregnancy dating.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal MedicineSame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207