How does maternal obesity affect the routine fetal anatomic ultrasound?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the completion rate for the routine anatomic survey in obese pregnant women with body mass index (BMI)≥30 as compared to normal weight controls (BMI: 20-25). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the routine anatomic survey was performed in 100 consecutive women with a BMI≥30. Each subject was matched to two normal weight controls, controlling for gestational age. Exclusion criteria such as anatomic abnormalities or multiple gestations were known. The degree of visibility (satisfactory, moderate or unsatisfactory), indication for repeat examination and placental location were assessed. RESULTS: Average BMI in the index cases was 35.7 (range: 30-64.8). Twenty-six (26%) of index cases were considered incomplete as compared to 5 (2.5%) of the 200 controls. The anatomic survey was completed in 74 (74%) of index cases compared with 195 (97.5%) of controls. Visibility was satisfactory in 28 (28%) of index cases, moderate in 46 (46%) and unsatisfactory in 26 (26%). In comparison, 177 (88.5%) were satisfactory, 17 (8.5%) moderate and 6 (3%) were poor in controls. CONCLUSIONS: The completion rate for the routine anatomic survey in obese (BMI≥30) pregnant women was significantly lower as compared to normal weight pregnant women.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".