MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Maternal Complications Following Open and Fetoscopic Fetal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W2969068996 on OpenAlexaff
Adalina Sacco, Lennart Van der Veeken, Emma Bagshaw, Catherine Ferguson, Tim Van Mieghem, Anna L. David, Jan Deprest

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFetusFetal surgeryObstetricsPregnancyPlacentaMeta-analysisFetal monitoringCordSurgeryIn uteroInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(Abstracted from Prenat Diagn 2019;39(4):251–268) Fetal therapy options have expanded, and surgery on the fetus, placenta, or cord is now relatively common in tertiary-level fetal medicine units. Fetal therapy is almost exclusively offered to mothers who are healthy themselves, yet fetal surgery poses risks to the mother not only during the procedure itself but also during the remainder of the index pregnancy, potentially during any future pregnancies and throughout the woman's entire life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.012
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.303
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.118 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207