MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028158548 · doi:10.1097/ruq.0b013e31829158c2

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® First Trimester Bleeding

2013· article· en· W2028158548 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound Quarterly · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestational sacPregnancyEctopic pregnancyObstetricsVaginal bleedingProducts of conceptionAbortionCrown-rump lengthGestational trophoblastic diseaseGuidelineRadiologyGynecologyFirst trimesterGestationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vaginal bleeding is not uncommon in the first trimester of pregnancy. Ultrasound is the foremost modality for evaluating normal development of the gestational sac and embryo and for discriminating the causes of bleeding. While correlation with quantitative βHCG and clinical presentation is essential, sonographic criteria permit diagnosis of failed pregnancies, ectopic pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease and spontaneous abortion. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria guidelines have been updated to incorporate recent data. A failed pregnancy may be diagnosed when there is absence of cardiac activity in an embryo exceeding 7 mm in crown rump length or absence of an embryo when the mean sac diameter exceeds 25 mm. In a stable patient with no intrauterine pregnancy and normal adnexae, close monitoring is advised. The diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy should be based on positive findings rather than on the absence of an intrauterine sac above a threshold level of βHCG. Following abortion, ultrasound can discriminate retained products of conception from clot and arteriovenous fistulae. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria® are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every two years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.241 · 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