MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116098344 · doi:10.2214/ajr.11.7405

Imaging of Pregnant and Lactating Patients: Part 1, Evidence-Based Review and Recommendations

2012· review· en· W2116098344 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Roentgenology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy-related medical research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIodinated contrastPregnancyLactationGadoliniumRadiation exposureUltrasoundRadiologyObstetricsNuclear medicineComputed tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this article are to discuss the current evidence-based recommendations regarding radiation dose concerns, the use of iodinated and gadolinium-based contrast agents, and the comparative advantages of multimodality imaging (ultrasound, CT, and MRI) during pregnancy and lactation. We also discuss the use of imaging to evaluate pregnant trauma patients. CONCLUSION: Maternal and fetal radiation exposure and dose are affected by gestational age, anatomic site, modality, and technique. The use of iodinated and gadolinium-based contrast agents during pregnancy and lactation has not been well studied in human subjects. Imaging should be used to evaluate pregnant trauma patients only when the benefits outweigh the risks.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.318 · 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