MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Twin Birth Study: 2-Year Neurodevelopmental Follow-up of the Randomized Trial of Planned Cesarean or Planned Vaginal Delivery for Twin Pregnancy

2017· article· en· W2588439887 on OpenAlex
Elizabeth Asztalos, Mary E. Hannah, Eileen K. Hutton, Andrew R. Willan, Alexander C. Allen, B. Anthony Armson, Amiram Gafni, K.S. Joseph, Arne Ohlsson, Susan Ross, Johanna Sanchez, Kathryn Mangoff, Jon Barrett

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetric Anesthesia Digest · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsTwin PregnancyPregnancyVaginal deliveryRandomized controlled trialCesarean deliveryVaginal birthGynecologyFetusSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

( Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214:371.e1–371.e19) Twin pregnancies occur more often and present with complications in 2% to 3% of all deliveries. Earlier studies reporting reduced risk of adverse perinatal outcomes for one or both twins when delivered by elective cesarean delivery has led to increased rates of elective cesarean delivery. The Twin Birth Study, a randomized controlled trial, enrolled women with twin pregnancies to planned cesarean or planned vaginal deliveries. Primary analysis revealed that cesarean delivery did not alter the risk of fetal or neonatal death as compared to vaginal delivery. The secondary outcome was a combination of death or neurodevelopmental delay of the children at 2 years of age. This study presented the 2-year outcomes of the children in the Twin Birth Study.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.245 · 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