MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979024292 · doi:10.1002/uog.21184

EP04.29: Antenatal diagnosis of congenital lymphoedema

2019· article· en· W2979024292 on OpenAlexaff
S. Zerounian, Elisabeth Codsi, Marie‐Ange Delrue, F. Rypens, S. Wavrant

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphatic System and Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymphedemaCystic hygromaBreech presentationPresentation (obstetrics)EdemaFetusConjoined twinsSurgeryRadiologyObstetricsPregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a 30 year-old patient, G3P1A1, refered to our high-risk centre for anomalies on the 20 week ultrasound. She was previously referred to our genetic department because of a fetal nuchal translucency of 6.1mm. Level II anatomy ultrasound demontrated a nuchal translucency of 8,8mm with associated edema. The nasal bone was present. Transcervical chorionic venous sampling was normal for QF-PCR and CGH and Noonan panel was negative. At16 weeks, nuchal fold was thickened and there were minimal pleural effusions. The ribs were noted to be short, the long bones were in the 30th percentile. Fetal echocardiography and TORCH investigations were normal. At the 20 weeks scan, pleural effusions were resolved but edema of the head, lower limbs and dorsal portion of the hands was present. which remained on subsequent ultrasounds. She delivered via Caesarean at 37 weeks because of spontaneous membrane rupture and breech presentation. Postnatal physical exam showed swelling of the neck, head, arms, legs and feet. All genetic evaluations were negative and a diagnosis of congenital lymphoedema was posed. Congenital lymphoedema is a condition present at birth in which lymph collects in tissues and causes swelling. Only a few cases of congenital lymphoedema have been reported. 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasound in Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicLymphatic System and DiseasesFrench-language works237,207