MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782852376 · doi:10.1530/erp-17-0063

Depressed left and right ventricular cardiac output in fetuses of diabetic mothers

2018· article· en· W2782852376 on OpenAlexaff
J. de Winter, Aparna Kulkarni, Mary Craft, Ling Li, Lisa K. Hornberger, David A. Danford, Shelby Kutty

Bibliographic record

VenueEcho Research and Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyFetusInternal medicineFetal heartPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: We compared right and left ventricular cardiac output (RVCO and LVCO) in fetuses of diabetic mothers (FDM) to a large normal cohort. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 264 normal fetuses and 30 FDM. Fetal CO parameters: semilunar valve velocity time integrals (AVVTI, PVVTI), ventricular outflow diameters (LVOTD, RVOTD), stroke volumes (AVSV, PVSV) were measured, and LVCO and RVCO calculated. These were normalized using nonlinear regression to estimated fetal weight (EFW) to provide means and standard deviations. Among FDMs, mean Z-scores and 95% confidence limits (CL) were calculated, and compared to zero. RESULTS: LVCO, RVCO, and parameters they were calculated from, increased predictably and non-linearly with increasing EFW. In FDM, LVCO was depressed (mean Z -1.679, 95% CL -2.404, -0.955, p<0.001), and AVVTI, LVOTD, AVSV significantly lower than normal. Similarly, RVCO (mean Z = -1.119, CL -1.839, -0.400, p=0.003), RVOTD (mean -2.085, CL -3.077, -1.093, p<0.001), and PVSV (mean -1.184, CL -1.921, -0.446, p=0.003) were lower than normal, however, PVVTI was not different (mean Z 0.078, CL -0.552, +0.707, p=0.803). CONCLUSION: Normal biventricular stroke volumes and outputs follow a nonlinear regression with EFW. FDM have significantly lower right and left heart stroke volumes and outputs for weight than do normal fetuses.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcho Research and PracticeSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207