MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072102164 · doi:10.1055/s-0029-1236440

Intrauterine Growth Patterns in Fetal Gastroschisis

2009· article· en· W2072102164 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda Horton, Marcy Powell, Honor M. Wolfe

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Perinatology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGastroschisisMedicineGestational ageObstetricsFetusGestationPregnancyAmniotic fluid indexAbdominal wall defectBirth weightIntrauterine growth restrictionAmniotic fluidPercentilePolyhydramniosPopulationAbdominal wallSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to evaluate patterns of intrauterine growth in fetal gastroschisis. This was a retrospective review of prenatally diagnosed cases of fetal gastroschisis delivered at the University of North Carolina Hospital from January 2000 to January 2007. Fetal growth (biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, femur length, and estimated fetal weight) and amniotic fluid volume were evaluated by gestational age. Gastroschisis was diagnosed in 83 pregnancies; outcomes were available in 71 fetuses. The mean gestational age at diagnosis was 17 weeks and 1 day. The mean gestational age at delivery was 35 weeks and 4 days. Mean birth weight was 2306 g. As early as the second trimester, all morphometric measures demonstrated impaired in utero growth, with growth curves shifted to the right of the 50th percentile when compared with a standard population. Estimated fetal weight below the 10th percentile was suspected in 23% of pregnancies, and birth weight at less than the 10th percentile occurred in 47% of neonates. Amniotic fluid volumes remained stable throughout gestation. Fetuses with gastroschisis display impaired intrauterine growth, which is noted in the midsecond trimester of pregnancy and does not appear to progress throughout gestation.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations35
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PerinatologySame topicCongenital Anomalies and Fetal SurgeryFrench-language works237,207