Does Cord Presentation on Ultrasound Predict Cord Prolapse?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the association of umbilical cord presentation found on antenatal ultrasound and the incidence of cord prolapse in labor. STUDY DESIGN: We reviewed the antenatal records of all deliveries in the Mount Sinai Hospital in a 5-year period and conducted two separate retrospective studies. In the first study we reviewed the antenatal sonograms of all women with proven cord prolapse for cord presentation (study A). In the second study we reviewed the obstetrical outcome of pregnancies where sonographic cord presentation was identified in the third trimester of pregnancy (study B). RESULTS: In study A, 16,551 delivery records were reviewed and 42 patients were found to have had clinical cord prolapse (0.25%). Sonograms were available for 16 of these 42 patients. Only 2 of them (12.5%) had cord presentation on ultrasound scan. In study B, cord presentation was reported in 13 of 8,122 consecutive sonograms (0.16%). Six of these patients (6/13, 46%) had been scanned once. Three required cesarean delivery for malpresentation and cord presentation on ultrasound (3/13, 23%), while the other 3 had uncomplicated vaginal deliveries (23%). The remaining 7 patients had repeat scans which revealed persistent cord presentation in 3 (23%). All 3 underwent cesarean delivery, 1 following cord prolapse. The other 4 spontaneously converted to vertex with resolution of cord presentation as proven at delivery (31%). CONCLUSION: Cord presentation and cord prolapse are not synonymous. Documented cord presentation during the third trimester necessitates repeat scans and intrapartum sonographic assessment to determine the mode of delivery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it