Twin reversed arterial perfusion (TRAP) sequence: A case report and a brief literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twin reversed arterial perfusion (TRAP) sequence is rare in monochorionic twin pregnancies. TRAP sequence is distinct from other multifetal pregnancies in that one of the twins has normal anatomy while the other twin has a varied amount of characteristic abnormal features. In the literature, mortality is reported 100% in the abnormal twin. We report 1 case of TRAP sequence at our institution in which the diagnosis of TRAP sequence was missed in the first trimester at another hospital. The patient, a 33-year-old G1P0A0, did not have any follow-up after her first scan until the routine second-trimester ultrasound at our institution. Both the radiologist and the sonographer did not appreciate the differential diagnosis of TRAP sequence in their clinical decision-making. The TRAP diagnosis was established after the ultrasound performed at the fetal assessment unit in our hospital. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) procedure was performed to give the normal twin a chance to survive, but unfortunately, the prognosis was poor in this case. We conclude that diagnosing a TRAP sequence is very important early in the pregnancy for a positive outcome in the normal twin. A robust collaboration among radiologists and obstetricians is vital for the best outcome of the normal twin.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".