Prediction of Intra-Twin Birth Weight Discordance by Binary Logistic Regression Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Identification of women at high risk of intra-twin birth weight discordance is helpful in obstetric care of these pregnancies. The aim of this study is to establish an intra-twin birth weight discordance prediction model. METHODS: We created an intra-twin birth weight discordance prediction model by logistic regression, based on the 1995-1997 register twin birth data of the USA. The twin sets were randomly divided into two groups: group 1 to establish the prediction model and group 2 to validate the prediction model. Intra-twin birth weight discordance was defined as birth weight discordance > 25%. The prediction model was validated by receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: A birth weight discordance prediction model including maternal age (beta = 0.069), parity (beta = 0.250), fetal gender concordance (beta = 0.041), maternal hypertension (beta = 0.368), eclampsia (beta = 0.316), other medical complication (beta = 0.165), and smoking (beta = 0.164) was established, yielded a 0.558 area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values were 38.1, 69.7, and 10.8%, respectively, at the cut-off value of 0.09 in group 2. CONCLUSION: A birth weight discordance prediction model that includes seven variables available during pregnancy has been established with acceptable diagnostic performance.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".