MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089623864 · doi:10.1097/ruq.0b013e3182394123

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Assessment of Gravid Cervix

2011· article· en· W2089623864 on OpenAlexaff
Phyllis Glanc, Rochelle F. Andreotti, Susanna I. Lee, Sandra O. DeJesus Allison, Genevieve L. Bennett, Douglas L. Brown, Theodore J. Dubinsky, Marcia C. Javitt, Donald G. Mitchell, Ann E. Podrasky, Thomas Shipp, Cary Siegel, Jade J. Wong-You–Cheong, Carolyn M. Zelop

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound Quarterly · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPreterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineCervixObstetricsAppropriate Use CriteriaDelphi methodCervical dilationPregnancyGestation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well recognized that preterm birth is the leading cause of perinatal mortality and morbidity. There is a significant association between cervix length and preterm birth risk. Most authorities consider a cervical length <3 cm as the lower limit of normal. A cervical length >3 cm has a high negative predictive value for delivery less than 34 weeks. A cervical length of <15 mm is moderately predictive (∼ 70%) of preterm birth within 48 hours. Cervical length is normally distributed and should remain relatively constant until the third trimester. Transabdominal US is the least reliable method of cervical length assessment. The most reliable method of documenting cervical length is transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS). Transperineal US is an alternative for imaging if TVUS is contraindicated, such as with premature rupture of membranes. However, the resolution is decreased compared to TVUS. Short cervix length is the single most important predictive finding for premature delivery. This observation should prompt consultation for high risk obstetrical care and consideration of other management options such as cerclage or activity restriction.The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed biennially by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.268 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasound QuarterlySame topicPreterm Birth and ChorioamnionitisFrench-language works237,207