MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012611001 · doi:10.1159/000263922

Cordocentesis: Overall Pregnancy Loss Rate as Important as Procedure Loss Rate

2009· review· en· W2012611001 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas W. Wilson, Duncan F. Farquharson, Bernd K. Wittmann, Dominick Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueFetal Diagnosis and Therapy · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTrisomyObstetricsPregnancyEarly Pregnancy LossAneuploidyPopulationFetusRetrospective cohort studyPrenatal diagnosisGynecologySingle CenterGestationSurgeryGeneticsChromosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 4-year retrospective review of cordocentesis at a single center with four operators identified 182 patients undergoing 214 cordocenteses. The major indications were chromosomal, fetal platelet and rhesus evaluation. The procedure was successful in 95%. A positive genetic diagnosis was present in 18% with 64% having trisomy 18, 21 or 13. The procedural pregnancy loss rate was 3.25, 1.25 and 2.75% for chromosomal and nonchromosomal indications and total population, respectively. The overall fetal loss rate (procedural, nonprocedural) in chromosomal risk population was 47%. This overall pregnancy loss risk should be included in patient counselling.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.291 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations31
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFetal Diagnosis and TherapySame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207