MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165899071 · doi:10.1155/2021/5544599

The Relationship between Fetal Abdominal Wall Thickness and Intrapartum Complications amongst Mothers with Pregestational Type 2 Diabetes

2021· article· en· W3165899071 on OpenAlexafffundabout
E.P. Isabey, Christy Pylypjuk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Diabetes Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaUniversity of Manitoba
FundersChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaManitoba Medical Service Foundation
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsFetusAbdominal wallType 2 diabetesPregnancyDiabetes mellitusEndocrinologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives. To evaluate the utility of fetal abdominal wall thickness (AWT) for predicting intrapartum complications amongst mothers with pregestational type 2 diabetes. Methods. This was a historical cohort study of pregnant mothers with pregestational type 2 diabetes delivering at a Canadian tertiary-care center between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. Delivery records were reviewed to collect information about demographics and peripartum complications. Stored fetal ultrasound images from 36 weeks’ gestation were reviewed to collect fetal biometry and postprocessing measurement of AWT performed in a standardized fashion by 2 blinded and independent observers. The relationship between fetal AWT was then correlated with risk of intrapartum complications including emergency Caesarean section (CS) and shoulder dystocia. Results. 216 pregnant women with type 2 diabetes had planned vaginal deliveries and were eligible for inclusion. Mean maternal age was 31.3 years, and almost all were overweight or obese at the time of delivery (96.8%). Overall, the incidence of shoulder dystocia and emergency intrapartum CS was 7.4% and 17.6%, respectively. There was no difference in mean fetal AWT between those having a spontaneous vaginal delivery (8.2 mm (95% CI 7.9-8.5)) and those needing emergency intrapartum CS (8.1 mm (95% CI 7.4-8.8); <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mi>p</a:mi> <a:mo>=</a:mo> <a:mn>0.71</a:mn> </a:math> ) or shoulder dystocia (8.7 mm (95% CI 7.9-9.5); <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <c:mi>p</c:mi> <c:mo>=</c:mo> <c:mn>0.23</c:mn> </c:math> ). There was strong interobserver correlation of AWT measurements ( <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <e:mi>r</e:mi> <e:mo>=</e:mo> <e:mn>0.838</e:mn> </e:math> ; <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"> <g:mi>p</g:mi> <g:mo>&lt;</g:mo> <g:mn>0.00001</g:mn> </g:math> ). The strongest association with intrapartum complications was birthweight ( <i:math xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5"> <i:mi>p</i:mi> <i:mo>=</i:mo> <i:mn>0.003</i:mn> </i:math> ): with <k:math xmlns:k="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M6"> <k:mtext>birthweight</k:mtext> <k:mo>&gt;</k:mo> <k:mn>4000</k:mn> </k:math> grams, the relative risk of shoulder dystocia or CS is 2.75 (95% CI 1.74-4.36; <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M7"> <m:mi>p</m:mi> <m:mo>&lt;</m:mo> <m:mn>0.001</m:mn> </m:math> ). Conclusions. There was no obvious benefit of AWT measurement at 36 weeks for predicting shoulder dystocia or intrapartum CS amongst women with type 2 diabetes in our population. The strongest predictor of intrapartum complications remained birthweight, and so studies for improving estimation of fetal weight and evaluating the role of intrapartum ultrasound for predicting risk of delivery complications are still needed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Diabetes ResearchSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207