MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abdominal circumference: a single measurement versus growth rate in the prediction of intrapartum Cesarean section for fetal distress

2001· article· en· W2126398580 on OpenAlexaff
Keith Philip Williams, Nwachukwu I. Nwebube

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsFetal distressGestational ageUltrasoundCircumferenceGestationFetusPerimeterAbdominal ultrasoundPregnancySurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The fetal abdominal circumference is the most sensitive ultrasound biometric measurement for predicting intrauterine growth restriction, which is associated with an increased risk of intrapartum fetal distress. We sought to evaluate and compare whether a third-trimester ultrasound measurement of abdominal circumference made within 1 week prior to delivery better predicts operative delivery for fetal distress when compared with the growth velocity of the abdominal circumference in the third trimester. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was carried out of prospectively collected ultrasound data on 117 patients with singleton gestations who had had at least two ultrasound assessments performed less than 6 weeks apart in the third trimester, with the last ultrasound performed within 1 week prior to delivery. The abdominal circumference value of the last ultrasound prior to delivery was placed into one of three categories: < or = 5% centile, > 5 to < or = 10% centile and > 10% centile for gestational age. The growth velocity of the abdominal circumference per week was placed into one of three categories: < or = 5 mm/week, 6-10 mm/week and > or = 11 mm/week. The chi-squared test was used to compare differences between the incidence of fetal distress between the groups. RESULTS: The incidences of Cesarean section for fetal distress in relation to a single measurement of the abdominal circumference were: < or = 5% centile, 8/23 (35%); > 5 to < or = 10% centile, 3/12 (25%); > 10% centile, 8/81 (10%) ( P < 0.05). The incidences of Cesarean section for fetal distress with the three abdominal circumference growth velocities were: < or = 5 mm/week, 9/55 (16%); 6-10 mm/week, 4/11 (36%); > or = 11 mm/week, 8/51 (16%) ( P = 0.9401). CONCLUSION: A single measure of the fetal abdominal circumference made within 1 week prior to delivery is superior to an assessment of growth rate of the fetal abdomen in the third trimester in discriminating patients who require Cesarean section for fetal distress.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasound in Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207