MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159035229 · doi:10.1155/2014/239406

Gastroschisis: Antenatal Sonographic Predictors of Adverse Neonatal Outcome

2014· review· en· W2159035229 on OpenAlexafffund
Rachael Page, Zachary M. Ferraro, Felipe Moretti, Karen Fung Kee Fung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pregnancy · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
FundersInstitute of Human Development, Child and Youth HealthCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGastroschisisMedicineObstetricsUltrasoundAdverse effectIntrauterine growth restrictionPregnancyProspective cohort studyFetusPediatricsSurgeryInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to identify clinically significant ultrasound predictors of adverse neonatal outcome in fetal gastroschisis. METHODS: A quasi-systematic review was conducted in PubMed and Ovid using the key terms "gastroschisis," "predictors," "outcome," and "ultrasound." RESULTS: A total of 18 papers were included. The most common sonographic predictors were intra-abdominal bowel dilatation (IABD), intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), and bowel dilatation not otherwise specified (NOS). Three ultrasound markers were consistently found to be statistically insignificant with respect to predicting adverse outcome including abdominal circumference, stomach herniation and dilatation, and extra-abdominal bowel dilatation (EABD). CONCLUSIONS: Gastroschisis is associated with several comorbidities, yet there is much discrepancy in the literature regarding which specific ultrasound markers best predict adverse neonatal outcomes. Future research should include prospective trials with larger sample sizes and use well-defined and consistent definitions of the adverse outcomes investigated with consideration given to IABD.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations30
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PregnancySame topicCongenital Anomalies and Fetal SurgeryFrench-language works237,207