<scp>P</scp>03.07: Discrepancies in antenatal and postmortem diagnosis of ventriculomegaly: why is the prenatal diagnosis not confirmed?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autopsy results may not confirm an antenatal diagnosis of ventriculomegaly. The lack of confirmatory postmortem findings may cause distress to families who request postnatal confirmation of findings. Following institutional ethical approval, 24 fetuses ranging from 20-37 gestational weeks, mean 23 weeks 5 days, underwent postmortem sonography. Measurements of the ventricles were obtained using standard technique, and compared with antenatal measurements. Neuropathological correlation was available in 20/24 fetuses. In 9 fetuses, antenatal measurements were normal. Neuropathological examination confirmed normal findings in all 8 cases in which full autopsy was performed. Among 14 fetuses with abnormal intracranial findings, postmortem sonography was inconclusive in one fetus which had undergone cephalocentesis prior to delivery. Three patients declined autopsy, but consented to post-mortem sonography. Using paired samples t-test, there was a significant change in size of the lateral ventricles LV between prenatal and postmortem scans (t = −4.5, df = 22, p = 0.0002). The average difference from (post - pre) was −3.5 (95% CI = −5.1 to −1.9), suggesting that postnatal scans showed smaller LV measurements than prenatal. Corroboration of antenatal sonographic findings of ventriculomegaly is difficult because of immediate postmortem reduction in ventricular size. This information may be useful in counselling families in which autopsy findings do not confirm antenatal diagnosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".