MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093417789 · doi:10.1002/uog.23516

Customized birth‐weight centiles and placenta‐related fetal growth restriction

2020· article· en· W3093417789 on OpenAlexaff
Nir Melamed, Liran Hiersch, Amir Aviram, Sarah Keating, John‏ Kingdom

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai HospitalSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsBirth weightSmall for gestational ageGestational agePopulationBody mass indexPregnancyPlacentaProspective cohort studyFetusFetal growthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Objective The value of using customized birth‐weight centiles to improve the diagnostic accuracy for fetal growth restriction (FGR), in comparison with using population‐based charts, remains a matter of debate. One potential explanation for the conflicting data is that most studies used measures of perinatal mortality and morbidity as proxies for placenta‐mediated FGR, many of which are not specific and may be confounded by other factors such as prematurity. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of small‐for‐gestational age (SGA) at birth, defined according to customized vs population‐based charts, for associated abnormal placental pathology. Methods This was a secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study on risk factors for placenta‐mediated complications and abnormal placental pathology in low‐risk nulliparous women. All placentae were sent for detailed histopathological examination by two perinatal pathologists. The primary exposure was SGA, defined as birth weight < 10th centile for gestational age using either a customized (SGAcust) or a population‐based (SGApop) birth‐weight reference. The outcomes of interest were one of three types of abnormal placental pathology associated with FGR: maternal vascular malperfusion (MVM), chronic villitis and fetal vascular malperfusion (FVM). Adjusted relative risks (aRR) with 95% CIs were estimated using modified Poisson regression analysis, with adjustment for smoking, body mass index and aspirin treatment. Results A total of 857 nulliparous women met the study criteria. The proportions of infants identified as SGA based on the customized and population‐based charts were 12.6% (108/857) and 11.4% (98/857), respectively. A diagnosis of SGA using either customized or population‐based charts was associated with an increased risk of any placental pathology (aRR, 3.04 (95% CI, 2.29–4.04) and 1.60 (95% CI, 1.10–2.31), respectively) and MVM pathology (aRR, 12.33 (95% CI, 6.60–23.03) and 5.29 (95% CI, 2.87–9.76), respectively). SGAcust, but not SGApop, was also associated with an increased risk for chronic villitis (aRR, 1.85 (95% CI, 1.07–3.18)) and FVM pathology (aRR, 2.48 (95% CI, 1.25–4.93)). SGAcust had a higher detection rate for any placental pathology (30.3% vs 17.1%; P < 0.001), MVM pathology (63.2% vs 39.5%; P = 0.003) and chronic villitis (20.8% vs 8.3%; P = 0.007) than did SGApop, for a similar false‐positive rate. This was mainly the result of a higher detection rate for abnormal pathology in the white and East‐Asian subgroups and a lower false‐positive rate for abnormal pathology in the South‐Asian subgroup by SGAcust than by SGApop. In addition, pregnancies in the SGAcust group, but not those in the SGApop group, were more likely to be complicated by preterm birth and a low 5‐min Apgar score than were the corresponding non‐SGA group. Conclusion These findings suggest that customized birth‐weight centiles may be superior to population‐based birth‐weight centiles in detecting FGR that is due to underlying placental disease. © 2020 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasound in Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207