Birth weight discordance and adverse perinatal outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to examine the association between discordant growth and perinatal mortality and morbidity among twins with careful adjustment for maternal confounding factors. STUDY DESIGN: Two cohorts with and without chorionicity data were compared using generalized estimating modeling. RESULTS: Our population-based dataset consisted of 12,656 individual twins from whom 4% (452/12,656) had≥30% growth discordance. A subgroup of this population with chorionicity information had an incidence of 7.3%≥30% growth discordance. In growth-discordant twins, perinatal mortality and morbidity were higher than concordant pairs (P<0.01). Low Apgar score and perinatal mortality were more frequent in growth-discordant twins compared with growth-concordant ones (all P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Birth weight discordance (BWD) places twins at increased risk of perinatal mortality. Growth discordance was also an independent risk factor for lower Apgar score of 5 min less than 5.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".