MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044087827 · doi:10.1002/pd.5802

Fetal spina bifida: What we tell the parents

2020· review· en· W3044087827 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePrenatal Diagnosis · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Dysraphism and Malformations
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreHospital for Sick ChildrenCentre for Social InnovationUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationSunnybrook HospitalHealth Sciences CentreMount Sinai Hospital
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsSpina bifidaFetusMedicineObstetricsPediatricsPregnancyBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Worldwide, about 150 000 infants are born with spina bifida yearly, making this condition one of the most common fetal central nervous system anomalies compatible with life. Over the last decade, major changes have been introduced in the prenatal diagnosis and management of spina bifida. In this review, we provide a brief summary of the current management of fetal spina bifida and present essential information that should be provided to expecting parents when their fetus has been diagnosed with spina bifida. This information is focused around common parental questions, as encountered in our typical clinical practice, to facilitate knowledge translation.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.275 · 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