MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775489934 · doi:10.1002/uog.16082

OC11.05: Accuracy of sonographic estimated fetal weight in postdates pregnancies: do weight estimates influence management?

2016· article· en· W2775489934 on OpenAlexaffabout
Todd Penney, Amy Metcalfe, D. A. Sommerset, Stephanie Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsSingletonGestationCaesarean sectionFetusBirth weightFetal weightGynecologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To compare sonographic estimated fetal weight (EFW) of postdates fetuses (≥41 + 0 weeks gestation) with actual birthweights (ABW). Secondary objectives were to compare EFW in macrosomic fetuses (≥4000/≥4500 g) with ABW and investigate relationship between EFW, delivery mode, and neonatal outcomes (NICU admission, APGARs). All singleton postdates gestations from 2009–2014 were identified in a clinical ultrasound database and linked to outcomes from the Alberta perinatal database (n = 3891). EFWs were determined using Hadlock method and compared with ABW using percent error (PE). PE for EFW ≥4000/4500 g vs. EFW < 4000/4500 g were compared using Mann–Whitney test. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPVs were calculated. χ2 tests were used to assess association between EFW, delivery mode and neonatal outcomes. Ultrasound overestimated ABW in our postdates cohort (mean PE −6.8%) with increasing error with larger estimates (mean PE of −8.9% and −10.2% for EFW ≥ 4000 g and ≥4500 g respectively). Moreover, ABW of 57% of fetuses with EFW ≥4000 g and 63% with EFW ≥4500 g differed by >1 SD (p < 0.01). Sensitivity for detecting macrosomia was 47.6% when EFW ≥4000 g and 27.8% when ≥4500 g. Specificity was 95.9% for EFW ≥4000 g and 99.3% ≥4500 g. Overall rate of Caesarean Section (CS) was 24.8%, with 12% performed prior to labour onset. Of fetuses with EFW ≥ 4000 g and ≥4500 g, 32% and 41% were delivered by CS, respectively, which is higher than expected using χ2 test (p < 0.01). Rate of CS prior to labour was 52% when EFW was ≥4000 g, which was also higher than expected by χ2 test (p < 0.01). No statistical significance was observed for neonatal outcomes. In postdates pregnancies, ultrasound overestimated ABW and became more inaccurate with larger estimates. Fetuses with suspected macrosomia were more likely to have a CS, and more likely to have CS without labour. This suggests clinical decisions regarding mode of delivery may be influenced by a test with significant inaccuracy.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasound in Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207