MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588693116 · doi:10.1097/gco.0000000000000346

Maternal risks of fetal therapy

2017· review· en· W2588693116 on OpenAlexaff
Alyaa Alrefai, Greg Ryan, Tim Van Mieghem

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlacental abruptionFetusObstetricsPregnancyChorioamnionitisFetal surgeryIntensive care medicineIn utero

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although most fetal disorders can be treated after birth, a few conditions that predictably lead to fetal or neonatal death, or that progress significantly before birth, are ideally treated prenatally. The number of centers offering fetal therapeutic procedures is gradually increasing worldwide. Patients and caregivers should be aware of the potential maternal risks of these interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: For transplacental medical therapy (corticosteroids, antiarrhythmics and immunoglobulins), severe maternal adverse events are rare, when done in expert centers. Minimally invasive procedures carry a risk of maternal complications of about 5%, with 1% being severe complications (pulmonary edema or placental abruption). Open fetal surgery carries important risks to the mother, both in the index pregnancy (pulmonary edema, placental abruption, chorioamnionitis and scar dehiscence) and in subsequent pregnancies (uterine rupture), yet some of these risks are decreasing with surgical refinement and increasing experience of the surgical team. SUMMARY: The information in this manuscript provides a base to counsel expectant mothers on risk of fetal therapy.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.494
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.044 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations39
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Obstetrics & GynecologySame topicPregnancy and Medication ImpactFrench-language works237,207