MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053216205 · doi:10.3109/01443615.2011.601359

Pregnancy outcome after 1st-trimester inadvertent exposure to barium sulphate as a contrast media for upper gastrointestinal tract radiography

2011· article· en· W2053216205 on OpenAlexaff
Byoung Hee Han, Kee-Hwan Lee, Jung Yeol Han, J. S. Choi, Hyun Kyong Ahn, Hyunnam Ryu, J. H. Yang, Hyeong‐Wook Han, Alejandro A. Nava‐Ocampo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal and GI Pathology
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiographyGastrointestinal tractBarium sulfatePregnancyContrast (vision)ObstetricsFirst trimesterOutcome (game theory)RadiologyInternal medicineGestationOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite barium being used as a contrast media for decades, the specific assessment of its safety in pregnant women is scarce. We are reporting the favourable pregnancy outcome in women who were inadvertently exposed to barium swallow and associated ionising radiation, early in pregnancy. A control group of age- and gravidity-matched unexposed pregnant women was also included. There were 32 live-born babies in the exposed group and 94 in the control group. Women had undergone diagnostic upper gastrointestinal tract (UGT) fluoroscopic examination at 3.3 ± 1.5 weeks' gestation. Estimated maternal radiation dose secondary to barium swallow varied widely, the maximum dose was estimated to be 2.45 mSv. Similar pregnancy outcomes were observed between the groups. The number of babies born with major malformations was not significantly different (p = 1.0) between cases and controls: one (3.1%) vs three (3.2%), respectively. In conclusion, our small prospective cohort study of women suggests no association between inadvertent exposure to ionising radiation and barium sulphate during fluoroscopic barium swallow and adverse fetal outcomes.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Obstetrics and GynaecologySame topicEsophageal and GI PathologyFrench-language works237,207