MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091333761 · doi:10.1155/2020/2979261

Expectant Management of Monochorionic‐Triamniotic Triplets Complicated by Selective In Utero Growth Restriction: Report of 2 Cases

2020· article· en· W3091333761 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laurence Carmant, S. Wavrant, Elisabeth Codsi

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Reports in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntrauterine growth restrictionIn uteroObstetricsPregnancyExpectant managementFetusGestation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.277
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Reports in Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207