MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128563848 · doi:10.5001/omj.2013.129

Case Report and Literature Review of Very Echogenic Amniotic Fluid at Term and Its Clinical Significance

2013· article· en· W2128563848 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

VenueOman Medical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEchogenicityAmniotic fluidMedicineMeconiumObstetricsFetal distressAsphyxiaClinical significanceFetusPregnancyPathologyRadiologyUltrasonography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presence of echogenic amniotic fluid on sonography is uncommon and its clinical significance is not well appreciated. Very echogenic amniotic fluid has been attributed to meconium, blood, or vernix caseosa. Two cases of patients with echogenic amniotic fluid at term are presented here. In the first case, the patient's management was altered as the finding of echogenic amniotic fluid was interpreted to be thick meconium. The second case was induced for post-datism and the amniotic fluid was found clear during labour. Since the first reported cases of meconium with echogenic amniotic fluid on sonography by Benacerraf et al. (1984), larger studies have consistently shown that echogenicity is not predictive of meconium. As with our cases, meconium was suspected in both patients with dense echogenic amniotic fluid. Labor was induced in the first case to avoid fetal distress and asphyxia with increasing gestation. Meconium was not present in either of our cases and both the babies were healthy.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.306 · 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