Preterm neonatal lateral ventricle volume from three-dimensional ultrasound is not strongly correlated to two-dimensional ultrasound measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to compare longitudinal two-dimensional (2-D) and three-dimensional (3-D) ultrasound (US) estimates of ventricle size in preterm neonates with posthemorrhagic ventricular dilatation (PHVD) using quantitative measurements of the lateral ventricles. Cranial 2-D US and 3-D US images were acquired from neonatal patients with diagnosed PHVD within 10 min of each other one to two times per week and analyzed offline. Ventricle index, anterior horn width, third ventricle width, and thalamo-occipital distance were measured on the 2-D images and ventricle volume (VV) was measured from 3-D US images. Changes in the measurements between successive image sets were also recorded. No strong correlations were found between VV and 2-D US measurements ([Formula: see text] between 0.69 and 0.36). Additionally, weak correlations were found between changes in 2-D US measurements and 3-D US VV ([Formula: see text] between 0.13 and 0.02). A trend was found between increasing 2-D US measurements and 3-D US-based VV, but this was not the case when comparing changes between 3-D US VV and 2-D US measurements. If 3-D US-based VV provides a more accurate estimate of ventricle size than 2-D US measurements, moderate-weak correlations with 3-D US suggest that monitoring preterm patients with PHVD using 2-D US measurements alone might not accurately represent whether the ventricles are progressively dilating. A volumetric measure (3-D US or MRI) could be used instead to more accurately represent changes.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".