MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205599139 · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2021.11.1357

The diagnosis and management of suspected fetal growth restriction: an evidence-based approach

2022· review· en· W4205599139 on OpenAlexaff
C. Lees, Roberto Romero, Tamara Stampalija, A. Dall’Asta, Greggory R. DeVore, Federico Prefumo, T. Frusca, Gerard H.A. Visser, John C. Hobbins, Ahmet Baschat, C. M. Bilardo, Henry L. Galan, S. Campbell, Dev Maulik, F. Figueras, Wesley Lee, Julia Unterscheider, Herbert Valensise, Fabrício da Silva Costa, Laurent Salomon, Liona C. Poon, E. Ferrazzi, Giancarlo Mari, Giuseppe Rizzo, John‏ Kingdom, Torvid Kiserud, Kurt Hecher

Post-publication record

NatureReinstatement
ReasonDate of Article and/or Notice Unknown;Notice - Limited or No Information;Retract and Replace;Temporary Removal;Removed;
Date1/10/2022 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?No. Retraction Watch records this, and OpenAlex does not flag it.

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNational Institutes of HealthSamsungImperial College LondonUniversità degli Studi di ParmaImperial College Healthcare NHS TrustNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchSamsung Medison
KeywordsDuctus venosusMedicineFetusUmbilical arteryObstetricsGestational ageIntrauterine growth restrictionSmall for gestational agePregnancySingle umbilical artery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations196
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207