MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2190511949 · doi:10.1002/uog.15195

OP10.07: The predictive value of sonographic cervical length in triplet pregnancies?

2015· article· en· W2190511949 on OpenAlexaff
Hadar Rosen, Rania Okby, Howie Freeman, Ori Nevo, Phyllis Glanc, Jon Barrett, Nir Melamed

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePredictive valueGestationObstetricsGestational ageSingletonPredictive value of testsGynecologyPregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While sonographic cervical length (CL) at mid-trimester has been shown to predict preterm birth (PTB) in singleton and twins, data regarding the predictive value of CL in triplets is limited. Our aim was to assess the predictive accuracy of CL in triplet pregnancies. Retrospective study of women with triplets and twins who were followed in a tertiary referral centre and underwent serial sonographic measurement of cervical length between 16 and 32 weeks. The change in CL along gestation in triplets was compared to that observed in twins. The predictive accuracy of CL was determined at 4 time periods along gestation: 18–20 (period 1), 21–24 (period 2), 25–27 (period 3) and 28–32 (period 4) weeks. 1) Overall 442 measurements of CL were available from 86 women with triplet pregnancies. 2) The rate of CL shortening was faster in triplets compared with twins (figure 1A), as well as among triplets that delivered before 34, 32 or 30 weeks compared with those who did not (figures 1B, 1C and 1D). 3) The correlation between CL and gestational age at delivery was highest during periods 3 and 4 at (r = 0.57–0.58) compared with periods 1 and 2 (r = 0.19 and 0.34, respectively, p < 0.001). 4) CL at 18–20 weeks (period 1) was not predictive of PTB. 5) CL at > =25 weeks (periods 3 and 4) had the highest predictive value for PTB, with a PPV of 78–87% and NPV of 54–68%. Supporting information can be found in the online version of this abstract Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

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)0.009
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasound in Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207