Placental pathology findings and birth weight discordance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the fetal, perinatal, and maternal outcomes in twin pregnancy according to chorionicity. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of 1,571 twin pregnancies with placental pathological examination collected from 2000-2010. Fetal, neonatal, and maternal outcomes of twins were compared via multivariate analysis. Results: Placenta anastomosis, unequal placenta sharing, cord size, and cord insertion type were found to be the key elements that impacted growth discordance in twin gestations. Higher rates of severe growth discordance were negatively associated with higher frequencies of anastomosis. Placentas in monochorionic twins were more likely to have shared arteries/veins. Discussion: Monochorionic placentas compensate for lack of nutritional flow by penetrating to other placenta surfaces. Compensation for lack of vascular sufficiency would mean a fused placenta or sharing more portions of the placenta. Higher rates of unequal placenta sharing among growth discordant twins is reported irrespective of chorionicity. Conclusion: Attention to placenta pathology is important in growth discordant twins.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".