The Early Amniocentesis Study: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Early Amniocentesis and Midtrimester Amniocentesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study provides detailed neonatal and congenital malformation follow-up from 695 women enrolled in a prospective randomized multicenter study comparing the safety and accuracy of early (11-12 weeks of gestation) and midtrimester amniocentesis (15-16 weeks of gestation). No differences were found for total pregnancy loss (difference 0.4%; CI -3.6 to 4.4%), obstetrical or neonatal outcome. The incidence of congenital anomalies was 2.4 and 2.6% for the early amniocentesis and midtrimester amniocentesis groups, respectively. Respiratory problems were present in 2.1 and 1.6%, respectively. Musculoskeletal problems were present in 0.9 and 2.4%, respectively. It must be emphasized that before early amniocentesis can be considered as an alternative to midtrimester amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling, careful evaluation of any fetal effects must be considered and further large randomized trials are necessary.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".