MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235473525 · doi:10.1002/uog.22601

VP17.14: Impact of increased surveillance on perinatal management and outcome of fetuses with congenital heart disease

2020· article· en· W4235473525 on OpenAlexaff
T. Trakulmungkichkarn, Lisa K. Hornberger, Trina Stryker, Angela McBrien

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFetusFetal echocardiographyHeart diseaseObstetricsPregnancyRetrospective cohort studyPediatricsInternal medicineCardiologyPrenatal diagnosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To examine the clinical impact of frequent antepartum surveillance (FAS) in pregnancies complicated by severe fetal CHD at risk for hydrops/demise. We hypothesised that perinatal outcomes would be improved in those that received FAS. We performed a retrospective chart review of pregnant women managed in our institution from 2003-2019 whose fetuses had severe CHD at risk for hydrops/demise (e.g. Ebsteins anomaly, absent pulmonary valve syndrome, cardiomyopathy), and were planned for active postnatal care. FAS was defined as occurring >1 time/week from 32 weeks of gestation. Of 60 cases, 58% (35/60) had FAS and 42% (25/60) had less frequent surveillance (LFS). Significantly more of those with FAS had livebirths (34/35, 97%) compared with the LFS group (17/25, 68%, p = 0.02). Intrauterine demise (IUFD) and intrapartum death occurred in 12% (3/25) and 20% (5/25) in those with LFS compared with FAS with 3% (1/35) IUFD and no intrapartum deaths (p = 0.02). Neonatal deaths did not differ statistically between groups (LFS 2/17 vs. FAS 12/34, p = 0.08). However, of all high-risk CHD diagnoses, there was improved survival beyond the neonatal period in those with FAS 66%, 22/35 vs. 60%, 15/25, p = 0.05). In 55 with available results, antenatal surveillance was abnormal in 22% (8/35) with FAS compared with 30% (6/20) with LFS (p = 0.34). For those who had an abnormal fetal heart rate, 29% (4/14) had late deceleration/bradycardia with loss of variability and 29% (4/14) had a non-reactive test with either variable deceleration or decreased variability. Overall when surveillance testing was abnormal, there was no significant difference in livebirths (78%, 11/14 vs. 90%, 37/41, p = .24), however there were more neonatal deaths (55%, 6/11 vs. 22%, 8/37, p = 0.04). Our results indicate that abnormal surveillance occurs frequently in high-risk CHD fetuses, suggesting they merit FAS and that FAS may positively impact their perinatal outcomes.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasound in Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicCardiovascular Issues in PregnancyFrench-language works237,207