Fetal Treatment 2017: The Evolution of Fetal Therapy Centers - A Joint Opinion from the International Fetal Medicine and Surgical Society (IFMSS) and the North American Fetal Therapy Network (NAFTNet)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than 3 decades ago, a small group of physicians and other practitioners active in what they called "fetal treatment" authored an opinion piece outlining the current status and future challenges anticipated in the field. Many advances in maternal, neonatal, and perinatal care and diagnostic and therapeutic modalities have been made in the intervening years, yet a thoughtful reassessment of the basic tenets put forth in 1982 has not been published. The present effort will aim to provide a framework for contemporary redefinition of the field of fetal treatment, with a brief discussion of the necessary minimum expertise and systems base for the provision of different types of interventions for both the mother and fetus. Our goal will be to present an opinion that encourages the advancement of thoughtful practice, ensuring that current and future patients have realistic access to centers with a range of fetal therapies with appropriate expertise, experience, and subspecialty and institutional support while remaining focused on excellence in care, collaborative scientific discovery, and maternal autonomy and safety.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it