Recognising Fetal Compromise in the Cardiograph during the Antenatal Period: Pearls and Pitfalls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are several national and international guidelines to aid the interpretation of the cardiotocograph (CTG) trace during labour. These guidelines are based on assessing changes in the fetal heart rate (i.e. cardiograph) in response to mechanical and hypoxic stresses during labour secondary to ongoing frequency, duration and strength of uterine contractions (i.e. tocograph). However, during the antenatal period, uterine contractions are absent, and therefore, these intrapartum CTG guidelines cannot be used to reliably identify fetuses at risk of compromise. Computerised analysis of CTG using the Dawes-Redman Criteria could be used to detect fetal compromise. However, clinicians should be aware of the multiple pathways of fetal damage (i.e. inflammation, infection, intrauterine fetal stroke, chronic fetal anaemia, acute feto-maternal haemorrhage and fetal cardiac or neurological disorders) which can cause changes on the CTG trace which may not be recognised by using CTG guidelines.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".