Safety and efficacy of fetal surgery techniques to close a spina bifida defect in the fetal lamb model: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of different neurosurgical techniques for closure of spina bifida (SB) in the fetal lamb model. METHOD: Systematic review of studies reporting on fetal lambs undergoing induction and closure of SB compared with non-operated normal lambs (negative controls) and/or lambs not undergoing closure of the defect (positive controls). Primary outcomes were (1) survival at birth (safety) and/or (2) presence of Somatosensory Evoked Potentials on hind limbs and/or improvement in quantitative histological spinal cord findings and/or reversal of hindbrain herniation (efficacy). RESULTS: Out of 1311, 36 full-text articles were eligible. Nineteen were included for quality assessment. Due to high bias, only 2 adequately powered studies were included in the final analysis. An open approach using a 2-layer closure (muscle flap or acellular-dermal-matrix patch plus skin) was the only safe (patch + skin) and effective (both techniques) technique for prenatal closure in this animal model. No comparable level of evidence was identified for other techniques. CONCLUSION: The experimental literature on prenatal SB closure underscores the lack of standardization. At present, there is animal experimental evidence that a 2-layer closure by hysterotomy is safe and effective. This technique is currently clinically used in a subset of patients. As new clinical techniques are introduced, it would seem logic to preclinically validate them against this experimental standard.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it