MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P72Prenatal assessment of the thymus in detecting fetuses with del.22q

2000· article· en· W2050585047 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rabih Chaoui, H. Körner, Christiane Bommer

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity Health Network
KeywordsMedicineFetusHypoplasiaAplasiaAnatomyPregnancyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Some congenital heart defects (CHD) were found to be associated with a deletion 22q11 and grouped as catch‐22 an acronym for Cardiac anomaly, Abnormal facies, Thymus hypo‐ or aplasia, Cleft palate and Hypothyreoidism with del.22q.11. It is still discussed whether all fetal CHD or only conotruncal anomalies (CTA) should get the targeted del.22q11 evaluation. Aim of the study was to find out the importance of thymus visualization in the prenatal detection of these affected fetuses. Method During a period of 3 years only fetuses with CHD undergoing invasive procedure for determination of the karyotype and fish for del.22q11 were included in the study. Fetal thymus was visualized as the structure in front of the great vessels as seen in the three‐vessels‐trachea view. Results 95 fetuses with different CHD were evaluated including 31 with conotruncal anomalies. Seven fetuses were found to have a del.22q11 (7.3% of all CHD, 22.5% of CTA). Six of these 7 (85.7%) had no or a hypoplastic thymus. A false positive result was found in two further cases. Conclusions Fetal thymus can be assessed on prenatal ultrasound. In fetuses with CHD especially in CTA the absence or hypoplasia of the thymus can be a hint in the targeted examination for del.22q11.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations7
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasound in Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207