MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2441431068 · doi:10.1111/jog.13051

Fetal nasal bone length at 19–26 weeks’ gestation in Vietnam

2016· article· en· W2441431068 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Xuan‐Hong Tomai, Thanh‐Hai Phan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsMedicineGestational ageGestationFetusObstetricsPercentilePregnancyReference rangeInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim The purpose of this study was to establish the normal range of fetal nasal bone length (NBL) at the second trimester of gestation in Vietnamese pregnancies. Methods A prospective cross‐sectional study was carried out. A total of 2432 singleton pregnancies were evaluated for fetal NBL at 19–26 weeks 6 days between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2014. Three measurements of NBL were taken and the largest value was chosen. Fetal anomalies and neonatal abnormalities were excluded. Results Mean fetal NBL was 6.75 ± 0.82 mm and mean gestational age was 22.2 ± 1.4 weeks. Median NBL increased linearly with advancing gestational age: NBL (mm) = 0.26 × gestational age (weeks) + 1.03 (R2 = 0.20; P < 0.000). The fifth percentile of fetal NBL ranged from 4.6 to 6.3 mm, corresponding with gestational age 19–26 weeks. Conclusion The normal range of NBL was established at second trimester in Vietnamese pregnancies. NBL at the fifth percentile for gestational age was different from that of other Asian ethnicities. It is necessary to define short NBL or hypoplasia of NBL with regard to ethnicity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology researchSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207