MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914122511 · doi:10.1159/000494615

Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A New Tool to Optimize the Prediction of Fetal Anemia?

2019· article· en· W2914122511 on OpenAlexaff
Ditte Staub Jørgensen, Niels Vejlstrup, Line Rode, C. K. Ekelund, Christopher K. Macgowan, Lisa Neerup Jensen, Lone Nikoline Nørgaard, Sharon Portnoy, Mike Seed, Karin Sundberg, Kirsten Søgaard, Julie Lyng Forman, Ann Tabor

Bibliographic record

VenueFetal Diagnosis and Therapy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingFetusAnemiaPregnancyObstetricsRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The false-positive rate in the prediction of fetal anemia is 10-15%. We investigated if a new, noninvasive MRI method used as a supplement to ultrasound could improve the prediction. METHODS: Fetuses suspected of anemia and controls were scanned in a 1.5-tesla MRI scanner 1-4 times during pregnancy. Cases were scanned before and after intrauterine blood transfusion with a T1-mapping MRI sequence in a cross-section of the umbilical vein. RESULTS: Inclusion of 8 cases and 11 controls resulted in 10 case scans (2 cases were included twice) and 33 control scans. In controls, the T1 relaxation time was 1,005-1,391 ms; in cases with severe anemia, 1,505-1,595 ms, moderate anemia 1,503-1,525 ms, and no/mild anemia 1,245-1,410 ms. After blood transfusions, values dropped to 1,123-1,288 ms. The mean value in moderate and severe anemic cases was 275 ms higher than in controls (95% CI 210-341 ms, p < 0.0001), and after blood transfusion it was comparable to controls (3 ms, 95% CI -62 to 68 ms, p = 0.934). A 1,450-ms cut-off would have identified all cases in need of blood transfusion with no false-positive cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate a potential for this new MRI method to improve the prediction of fetal anemia as a supplement to ultrasound.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFetal Diagnosis and TherapySame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207