Single Fetal Demise at 10 - 14 Weeks of Monochorionic and Dichorionic Twin Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We examined the perinatal outcomes in cases of at least one fetal demise in monochorionic and diamniotic twin pregnancies. METHODS: We reviewed the obstetric records of all Japanese twin pregnancies managed beyond 9 weeks' gestation at Japanese Red Cross Katsushika Maternity Hospital between 2008 and 2014. RESULTS: The incidence in the monochorionic twin pregnancies was significantly higher than that in the dichorionic twin pregnancies (8.3% vs. 2.6%, odds ratio: 3.40, 95% confidence interval: 1.5 - 7.6, P < 0.01). Of these, 60.0% were diagnosed as fetal demise of both fetuses at the same time (vs. dichorionic twin pregnancy: odds ratio: 12.0, 95% confidence interval: 1.3 - 120, P = 0.04). The rate of "vanishing twin" in cases of at least one fetal demise at 10 - 14 weeks' gestation in the monochorionic twin pregnancies was significantly lower than that in the diamniotic twin pregnancies (30.0% vs. 88.9%, odds ratio: 0.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.01 - 0.53, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The incidence of fetal demise and the influence on the co-twin in monochorionic twin pregnancy is greater than those in dichorionic twin pregnancy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".