P19.04: The intertwin difference in first trimester nuchal translucency does not predict birthweight discordance in twin pregnancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fetal outcomes appear to be worse when intertwin birth weight differences exceed 20%. Additionally, nuchal translucency (NT) discordance is a screening tool to predict a variety of pregnancy outcomes including aneuploidy, congenital heart disease, genetic syndromes, and Twin–twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS). In this study, we aimed to understand the relationship and predictive value between intertwin NT discordance and birthweight discrepancies ≥20%. We conducted a single-centre retrospective cohort study of all live twin births delivering at The Ottawa Hospital between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014 who opted for integrated prenatal screening. Data were extracted from the electronic medical and birth records of mothers and their twin offspring. In our cohort complete data was available for a total of 915 twin pregnancies. Maternal age, BMI and parity, were not significantly different between groups when categorised according to <20% vs. ≥20% birthweight discordance. Nearly 17% of twin pairs exhibited ≥20% difference in birthweight. Additionally, in vitro fertilisation, congenital anomalies, TTTS, fetal gender, and chorionicity (via ultrasound and pathology) did not differ between groups (<20% vs ≥20% birthweight discordance). In multivariate logistic models assessing NT discordance as a continuous variable and adjusting for chorionicity, maternal age, gestational age, BMI, and parity, NT discordance (OR 1.228; 95% CI 0.918-1.644) was not associated with birthweight discordance ≥20% (p=0.16). In this single-centre, cohort of twin pregnancies, NT discordance was not associated with birthweight discrepancies ≥20%. Whether greater NT discordance has predictive value with respect to intertwin birthweight discrepancies and fetal outcomes remains to be established. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".