EP15.08: Correlation of estimated fetal weight with neonatal birthweight in infants born at borderline viability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to determine the correlation between estimated fetal weight and neonatal birth weight in livebirth deliveries between 23 + 0 and 25 + 6 weeks gestational age at a major Canadian tertiary care centre. A retrospective cohort study was conducted at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. We sampled patients retrospectively through records of all patients delivering singleton pregnancies at gestational ages of 23 + 0 to 25 + 6 weeks between January 2003 and December 2013 inclusive, who had an ultrasound scan less than 2 weeks prior to delivery. We collected information regarding maternal demographics, ultrasound parameters, and neonatal characteristics. Two hundred and forty-seven deliveries met criteria for the study, with an average birth weight of 679 +/− 120 grams. Median maternal age was 32 years, ranging from 16 to 46 years; median gravidity was 2, with a range of 1 to 16. The mean interval between ultrasound (measuring fetal biometry) and birth was 3.24 days. The Pearson correlation between EFW and live birthweight was 0.63; the correlation was 0.75 when selecting for cases in which EFW was determined within one day of birth. Estimates of fetal weight correlate moderately with live birthweight in neonates born at 23 + 0 to 25 + 6 weeks when ultrasound was performed within two weeks of delivery. There was a strong correlation between EFW and birth weight when sonography took place within one day of birth. Developing a better understanding of the utility of EFW in assessing extremely premature neonates will help guide physicians' and families' decision-making during this difficult periviable period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".