VP30.09: Referral trends and etiologies of isolated and complex echogenic bowel: a historical cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the frequency and etiologies of isolated and complex echogenic bowel (EB) diagnosed at routine midtrimester ultrasound. This was a historical cohort study (2012-2018). All fetuses with EB were identified using a regional, prenatal genetic clinical database and designated as either ‘Isolated’ or ‘Complex’ depending on the coexistence of additional ultrasound or analyse abnormalities. Stored consult letters and ultrasound reports were reviewed by trained study personnel in a standardised fashion to collect data about demographics, covariates and outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to present demographic data, and the Chi-square, student t-, and Kruskal Wallis tests used to compare outcomes between groups depending on data type and distribution. Trends in annual EB referrals were calculated regional livebirths per year as the denominator. Of the 252 fetuses with EB identified, only 232 were eligible and included in the final cohort. There annual frequency of referrals for EB increased significantly over the study period from 0.14% to 0.42% (p = 0.038). The majority of referrals were for “Isolated” EB (77.3%), and the remaining cases were classified as “Complex” due to co-existing anomalies, abnormal screening analysis or other soft markers. Only 11.2% of all cases were found to have and underlying diagnosis (22.6% of Complex EB cases vs 6.1% of Isolated EB), while the majority remained unexplained. For cases where an underlying diagnosis was found, anomalies and cystic fibrosis were most common in the Isolated EB group compared to the Complex EB group in which other genetic conditions (aneuploidy or syndromes) were predominant but no cases of cystic fibrosis were found. The frequency of EB referrals has increased during the study period, although the majority of cases are isolated and remain unexplained. Recognition of the differential distribution of underlying diagnoses of Isolated versus Complex EB can assist in counseling of families about individual risks.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".