MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752512362 · doi:10.1002/uog.18890

Functional hemodynamic testing in pregnancy: recommendations of the International Working Group on Maternal Hemodynamics

2017· article· en· W2752512362 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria L. Meah, Karianne Backx, Margie H. Davenport

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersSt George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustUniversiteit HasseltImperial College LondonUniversità degli Studi di Roma Tor VergataUniversiteit MaastrichtCardiff Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Cambridge
KeywordsHemodynamicsMedicinePregnancyPopulationGestationHaemodynamic responseTest (biology)ObstetricsInternal medicineCardiologyHeart rateBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the general population, functional hemodynamic testing, such as that during submaximal aerobic exercise and isometric handgrip, and the cold pressor test, has long been utilized to unmask abnormalities in cardiovascular function. During pregnancy, functional hemodynamic testing places additional demands on an already stressed maternal cardiovascular system. Dysfunctional responses to such tests in early pregnancy may predict the development of hypertensive disorders that develop later in gestation. For each of the above functional hemodynamic tests, these recommendations provide a description of the test, test protocol and equipment required, and an overview of the current understanding of clinical application during pregnancy. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations36
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasound in Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207