Growth Discordance is not an Independent Risk Factor for Adverse Perinatal Outcomes in Twin Pregnancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the perinatal characteristics and outcomes in growth discordant monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies concerning the difference of actual weight of each twin (appropriate for gestational age or small for gestational age; AGA or SGA). Methods: We examined normally growth (AGA–AGA) and AGA-SGA monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies with birth (or fetal) weight discordancel (6 AGA-AGA and 54 AGA-SAG monochorionic, and 16 AGA-AGA and 97 AGA-SGA dichorionic twin pregnancies). In addition, we examined normally growth (AGA–AGA) and AGA-SGA monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies with birth (or fetal) weight concordance as control (97 AGA-AGA and 66 AGA-SAG monochorionic, and 359 AGA-AGA and 137 AGA-SGA dichorionic twin pregnancies). Results: Growth discordance in the monochorionic and diamniotic twin pregnancies was associated with adverse outcomes only in the SGA twins of the discordant AGA-SGA twin pregnancies. Conclusion: The presence of growth discordance or growth restriction may not be an independent risk factor for adverse perinatal outcomes in twin pregnancies. doi:10.4021/jcgo14w
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".