A New Approach for Classifying Fetal Growth Restriction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fetal growth restriction is commonly defined using small for gestational age (SGA) birth (birthweight < 10th percentile) as a proxy, but this approach is problematic because most SGA infants are small but healthy. In this proof-of-concept study, we sought to develop a new approach for identifying fetal growth restriction at birth that combines information on multiple, imperfect measures of fetal growth restriction in a probabilistic manner. METHODS: We combined information on birthweight, placental weight, placental malperfusion lesions, maternal disease, and fetal acidemia using latent profile analysis to classify fetal growth in births at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal, Canada, 2001-2009. We examined the clinical characteristics and health outcomes of infants classified as growth-restricted and nongrowth-restricted by our model, and among the subgroup of growth-restricted infants who had a birthweight ≥10th percentile (i.e., would have been missed by the conventional SGA proxy). RESULTS: Among 26,077 births, 345 (1.3%) were classified as growth-restricted by our latent profile model. Growth-restricted infants were more likely than nongrowth-restricted infants to have an Apgar score <7 (10% vs. 2%), have hypoglycemia at birth (17% vs. 3%), require neonatal intensive care unit admission (59% vs. 6%), die in the perinatal period (3.8% vs. 0.2%), and require an emergency cesarean delivery (42% vs. 15%). Risks remained elevated in growth-restricted infants who were not SGA, suggesting our model identified at-risk infants not detected using the SGA proxy. CONCLUSIONS: Latent profile analysis is a promising strategy for classifying growth restriction at birth in fetal growth restriction research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".