MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072866283 · doi:10.1055/s-0029-1241732

Perinatal Outcomes in Isolated Single Umbilical Artery

2009· article· en· W2072866283 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda Horton, Lisa Barroilhet, Honor M. Wolfe

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Perinatology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUmbilical arterySingle umbilical arteryUmbilical cordNeonatal intensive care unitObstetricsBirth weightGestational ageFetusSmall for gestational agePregnancyRetrospective cohort studyPediatricsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We sought to determine the rate of adverse perinatal outcomes in pregnancies diagnosed with an isolated single umbilical artery (SUA). We performed a retrospective review comparing 68 pregnancies with an isolated SUA to 68 pregnancies with a three-vessel cord (3VC). Pregnancies with structural or karyotypic anomalies were excluded. Gestational age at delivery, birth weight, SGA rate, ponderal index, and rates of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit were compared between groups. Student T test and chi-square analysis were performed. Neonates with isolated SUA had a significantly smaller birth weight than those with a 3VC (3279 +/- 404 g versus 3423 +/- 374 g, P = 0.0168). There was no significant difference in rates of SGA (17.6% versus 8.8%, P = 0.06). Ponderal index was significantly less in those with SUA compared with 3VC (24.2 +/- 1.1 g/cm(3) versus 26.1 +/- 1.3 g/cm(3), P = 0.001). SUA neonates had a significantly longer length of neonatal intensive care unit stay than 3VC neonates (1.25 +/- 2.2 days versus 0.48 +/- 1.25 days, P < 0.023). Fetuses with a prenatal diagnosis of isolated umbilical artery have a significantly lower ponderal index compared with fetuses with a 3VC. Pregnancies with isolated SUA should undergo serial assessments for fetal growth.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations39
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PerinatologySame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207