MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132638447 · doi:10.1002/uog.14900

Systematic review and meta‐analysis of isolated posterior fossa malformations on prenatal ultrasound imaging (part 1): nomenclature, diagnostic accuracy and associated anomalies

2015· review· en· W2132638447 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
F. D’Antonio, A. Khalil, Cathérine Garel, G. Pilu, Giuseppe Rizzo, Tally Lerman‐Sagie, A. Bhide, B. Thilaganathan, Lamberto Manzoli, Aris T. Papageorghiou

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNomenclaturePrenatal diagnosisPosterior fossaMedicineMeta-analysisUltrasoundDiagnostic accuracyRadiologyPathologyPregnancyFetusBiologyTaxonomy (biology)Genetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore the outcome in fetuses with prenatal diagnosis of posterior fossa anomalies apparently isolated on ultrasound imaging. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched electronically utilizing combinations of relevant medical subject headings for 'posterior fossa' and 'outcome'. The posterior fossa anomalies analyzed were Dandy-Walker malformation (DWM), mega cisterna magna (MCM), Blake's pouch cyst (BPC) and vermian hypoplasia (VH). The outcomes observed were rate of chromosomal abnormalities, additional anomalies detected at prenatal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), additional anomalies detected at postnatal imaging and concordance between prenatal and postnatal diagnoses. Only isolated cases of posterior fossa anomalies - defined as having no cerebral or extracerebral additional anomalies detected on ultrasound examination - were included in the analysis. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. We used meta-analyses of proportions to combine data and fixed- or random-effects models according to the heterogeneity of the results. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies including 531 fetuses with posterior fossa anomalies were included in this systematic review. The prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities in fetuses with isolated DWM was 16.3% (95% CI, 8.7-25.7%). The prevalence of additional central nervous system (CNS) abnormalities that were missed at ultrasound examination and detected only at prenatal MRI was 13.7% (95% CI, 0.2-42.6%), and the prevalence of additional CNS anomalies that were missed at prenatal imaging and detected only after birth was 18.2% (95% CI, 6.2-34.6%). Prenatal diagnosis was not confirmed after birth in 28.2% (95% CI, 8.5-53.9%) of cases. MCM was not significantly associated with additional anomalies detected at prenatal MRI or detected after birth. Prenatal diagnosis was not confirmed postnatally in 7.1% (95% CI, 2.3-14.5%) of cases. The rate of chromosomal anomalies in fetuses with isolated BPC was 5.2% (95% CI, 0.9-12.7%) and there was no associated CNS anomaly detected at prenatal MRI or only after birth. Prenatal diagnosis of BPC was not confirmed after birth in 9.8% (95% CI, 2.9-20.1%) of cases. The rate of chromosomal anomalies in fetuses with isolated VH was 6.5% (95% CI, 0.8-17.1%) and there were no additional anomalies detected at prenatal MRI (0% (95% CI, 0.0-45.9%)). The proportions of cerebral anomalies detected only after birth was 14.2% (95% CI, 2.9-31.9%). Prenatal diagnosis was not confirmed after birth in 32.4% (95% CI, 18.3-48.4%) of cases. CONCLUSIONS: DWM apparently isolated on ultrasound imaging is a condition with a high risk for chromosomal and associated structural anomalies. Isolated MCM and BPC have a low risk for aneuploidy or associated structural anomalies. The small number of cases with isolated VH prevents robust conclusions regarding their management from being drawn. Copyright © 2015 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.033
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations108
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasound in Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207