MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471083792

[Intrauterine growth restriction--diagnosis and treatment].

2015· article· en· W2471083792 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Małgorzata Radoń-Pokracka, Hubert Huras, Robert Jach

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntrauterine growth restrictionObstetricsObservational studyFetal growthLow birth weightBirth weightFetusPregnancyGynecologyPediatricsInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence of low birth weight affects approximately 3-10% of live-born newborns in developed countries and in developing countries it affects 15-20% of newborns. The most common cause of low birth weight is considered to intrauterine fetal growth resctriction. Low birth weight is responsible for 69.6% of stillbirths and for 66.4% of neonatal deaths. The purpose of this paper is to review reliable scientific data in order to summarize the current guidelines on intrauterine fetal growth restriction, addressed to obstetricians. The present review is based on guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), the results of DIGITAT- (ang. The Disproportionate Growth intrauterine Intervention Trial At Term) PORTO Study- (ang. Prospective Observational Trial is the Opitimize Pedriatric Health in intrauterine Growth Restriction), TRUFFLE- (ang. Randomized Trial of Fetal and Umbilical Flow in Europe), and the available literature.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.006

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207