MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088642888 · doi:10.1055/s-0040-1716742

Fetal Macrocephaly: A Novel Sonographic Finding in Congenital Myotonic Dystrophy

2020· article· en· W3088642888 on OpenAlexaff
Shiri Shinar, Parry Balakumar, Vibhuti Shah, Karen Chong, Tami Uster, David Chitayat

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Perinatology Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacrocephalyMedicinePrenatal diagnosisFetusObstetricsIn uteroPregnancyGestational agePediatricsFetal headGestation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective Sonographic clues to the diagnosis of congenital myotonic dystrophy (CDM) are limited, particularly in the absence of family history of myotonic dystrophy (DM). We reviewed cases of CDM for unique prenatal findings. Study Design A single-center case series of fetuses with CMD with characteristic prenatal findings confirmed postnatally. Results Four fetuses with pre- or postnatally diagnosed CDM presented with macrocephaly in utero. While head measurements were appropriate for gestational age until midgestation, third-trimester head circumference and biparietal diameter were both >2 standard deviation (SD) above the mean in all. Abdominal and femur measurements were otherwise appropriate for gestation. Postnatally, the occipitofrontal circumference was >2 SD above the mean in all, confirming the diagnosis of macrocephaly. Conclusion CDM should be included in the differential diagnosis of third-trimester macrocephaly, especially in the presence of additional sonographic clues and when maternal medical history and physical examination are suggestive of DM.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Perinatology ReportsSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207