Expectant Management of Monochorionic‐Triamniotic Triplets Complicated by Selective In Utero Growth Restriction: Report of 2 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimal management of monochorionic-triamniotic (MCTA) triplet pregnancies is not clearly established, and there is no literature to guide management of MCTA complicated with selective intrauterine growth restriction (sIUGR). This gap in knowledge and the concern for higher risk of severe complications have led some medical societies to recommend selective termination of nontrichorionic triplet pregnancies. We sought to report the favourable outcomes of two MCTA complicated by sIUGR expectantly managed at Sainte-Justine Hospital, Montreal, Canada. The first case is of a 42-year-old woman with spontaneous MCTA triplets diagnosed at 18 weeks with type II sIUGR who opted for expectant management. The second patient was a 22-year-old woman with a spontaneous MCTA triplet pregnancy diagnosed at 18 weeks with type III sIUGR. Our experience shows that close serial ultrasounds could potentially allow physicians to foresee fetal deterioration. In our opinion, expectant management should be considered as a management option for MCTA complicated by sIUGR.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".