MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113056161 · doi:10.5539/jmbr.v10n1p118

Risk of Fetal Loss after Amniocentesis in Twins Comparing with Singleton Pregnancy

2020· article· en· W3113056161 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sara Masihi, Nahid Shahbazian, Mojgan Barati, Minoo Hashemi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Molecular Biology Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAhvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsAmniocentesisMedicineObstetricsSingletonTwin PregnancyObstetrics and gynaecologyGestational ageFetusPregnancyGestationAbortionGynecologyPrenatal diagnosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Amniocentesis is one of the most widely used diagnostic interventions but despite its many advantages, it has side effects such as fetal loss. The importance of fetal loss after amniocentesis in twin pregnancies is very important and some researchers believe that in twin pregnancies, the risk of fetal loss after amniocentesis is higher than singleton. Therefore, the present study examined the rate of fetal loss after amniocentesis in twin pregnancies compared to singleton pregnancies. Methods: This prospective descriptive-analytical study was performed on 712 mothers with singleton (628 cases) and twin (84 cases) pregnancies who referred to the obstetrics and gynecology clinic of Imam Khomeini Hospital in Ahvaz with Amniocentesis due to several reason during 2016-2020. A questionnaire containing information such as age, gestational age, number of pregnancies, childbirth and abortion, the cause of the diagnostic test, quarterly screening and NT ultrasound, and the result of amniocentesis were completed for patients. Patients were followed up during the first week, two weeks, and 60 days after amniocentesis, and finally data were analyzed by SPSS version24. Results: The mean age of the patients was 31.96 ± 6.33 years and the mean gestational age at amniocentesis for all patients was 15.37 ± 0.7. The mean NT in patients in the two groups did not differ significantly (1.60±0.44 vs 1.54±4.64, p=0.56). the prevalence of preterm in twin mothers was 13.1% and, in the singleton was 1.75% (p = 0.01). The occurrence of fetal loss was 2.4% in the twin group and 2.07% in the singleton group which was not statistically significant (p = 0.56). in the twin group, one (50%) fetal loss occurred in the first week and another one (50%) occurred between 15 and 60 days. But in the singleton group, 7 cases (63.6%) in the first week, 1 case (9%) in 15 to 60 days, and 3 cases (27.3) after more than 60 days lost the fetus. Previous pregnancy records in twins showed that the mean Gravid (p = 0.01), Parity (p = 0.01) and Living child (p = 0.02) in preterm twins' patients were statistically significantly lower than in the term patients. Conclusion: Our findings show that fetal loss following amniocentesis in twin pregnancies does not increase significantly compared to singleton pregnancies. However, our findings require repeated study in bigger sample size and as multi-centered as possible then It can be generalized to wider communities.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Molecular Biology ResearchSame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207