Comparative Study of Abdominal Versus Transvaginal Ultrasound for Uterine Artery Doppler Velocimetry at 11 to 13 Weeks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the first-trimester uterine artery pulsatility index (PI) measured by abdominal and transvaginal ultrasound (US). METHODS: We performed a prospective study of singleton pregnant women recruited at 11 to 13 weeks' gestation. The mean uterine artery PI was obtained by abdominal followed by transvaginal US. The mean of the left and right uterine artery PIs was used, and differences between approaches were computed. The intraclass correlation coefficient and a Bland-Altman plot were used to compare the two approaches. RESULTS: Data were available for 940 participants, including 928 (99%) with uterine artery PIs obtained on both uterine sides. The mean uterine artery PI decreased with gestational age in both approaches (P < .001). We observed a moderate correlation between abdominal and transvaginal mean uterine artery PIs (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.75). Values obtained by abdominal US (median, 1.70, interquartile range, 1.35 to 2.09) were greater than those obtained by transvaginal US (median, 1.65; interquartile range, 1.37 to 1.99). There was a significant increase in differences as average measurements became higher (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The first-trimester mean uterine artery PI decreases with gestational age in both approaches. Abdominal US could be associated with greater uterine artery PI values than transvaginal US, especially at higher measurements. The first-trimester uterine artery PI for prediction of adverse perinatal outcomes should be adjusted for gestational age and possibly for the US approach.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".