Triplet Pregnancy: Is the Mode of Conception Related to Perinatal Outcomes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many triplets are conceived as a consequence of assisted reproductive technology (ART). Concerns have been raised that triplet pregnancies conceived by ART are more complicated than those conceived spontaneously. The purpose of this study was to evaluate all triplet pregnancies managed over a 12-year period to determine if there were any differences in outcome based on the mode of conception. All triplet pregnancies between 1999 and 2011 that reached at least 20 weeks' gestation and that were managed at the Royal Women's Hospital (RWH), Melbourne, Victoria were identified. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared between ART conceived and spontaneously conceived triplets. In the study period, 53 sets of triplets managed in our institution met the eligibility criteria. Twenty-five triplet sets were conceived by ART and 28 were conceived spontaneously. More ART conceptions resulted in trichorionic triamniotic (TCTA) triplets than did spontaneous conceptions (p = .015). There were no differences between ART and spontaneously conceived triplets for any of the maternal or neonatal complications studied. Trichorionic (TC) triplets delivered at a later gestation than other triplets: 32.1 (SD 2.9) versus 30.4 (SD 3.9) weeks (p = .08). TC triplets were significantly less likely to die than monochorionic (MC) or dichorionic (DC) triplets: 3/93 (3%) versus 13/66 (20%) (p = .025). In conclusion, triplets conceived by ART are more likely to have TCTA placentation and TCTA triplet sets had lower mortality rates than other triplet combinations. Outcomes for triplets conceived by ART were similar to those of triplets conceived spontaneously.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".