MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Time to reconsider our approach to echogenic intracardiac focus and choroid plexus cysts

2008· review· en· W2058012544 on OpenAlex
Michael Bethune

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

VenueAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChoroid plexusIntracardiac injectionEchogenicityMedicineAneuploidyAnxietyRadiologyFocus (optics)UltrasoundInternal medicineBiologyChromosomePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ultrasound soft markers are commonly reported at mid-trimester ultrasounds. Soft markers frequently arouse anxiety in the patient, her family, and the referring clinician. Recent publications have raised concerns that this anxiety may be unfounded. The significance of an echogenic intracardiac focus or choroid plexus cyst in particular is no longer certain. It may be time to discard these two markers; especially if they are reported in isolation and in a patient who is otherwise at low risk for aneuploidy.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.312
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