MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243776015 · doi:10.1375/twin.4.6.431

Evaluating 2 Year Outcome in Twins ≤ 30 Weeks Gestation at Birth: A Regional Perinatal Unit's Experience

2001· article· en· W4243776015 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Asztalos, Jon Barrett, Maralyn Lacy, Maureen Luther

Bibliographic record

VenueTwin Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestationObstetricsIncidence (geometry)Premature rupture of membranesTwin PregnancyGestational agePregnancyCohortMultiple birthNeonatologyTwin-to-twin transfusion syndromePediatricsProspective cohort studySingletonReproductive medicinePremature birthPopulationSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With improved technology in assisted reproductive medicine, there has been an absolute increase in the numbers of twin pregnancies with an associated increase in perinatal mortality and morbidity. This increase in perinatal mortality and morbidity is largely due to a higher incidence of delivering preterm as compared to singletons. Twin pregnancies have their unique complications that include abnormal placental communication and discordant growth which are associated with perinatal mortality and morbidity. The objectives of this study were two-fold: i) to determine if the morbidity/mortality outcome at 18–24 months corrected age seen in a cohort of twins born between 24–30 weeks gestation was significantly different as compared to singleton preterm infants of the same gestation; and ii) to determine and evaluate any differences between monochorionic (MC) and dichorionic (DC) twins. Twins 24–30 weeks gestation at birth born between 01/01/97–30/06/99 were identified and prospectively followed to 18–24 months corrected age (c.a.). They were matched with a singleton infant of the same gender and within 1 week of the same gestation. Obstetrical, neonatal and neurodevelopmental data were gathered and analyzed. The primary outcome was death or the presence of a severe neurodevelopmental deficit at 18–24 months corrected age. Of the 56 sets of twins identified, 52 sets were followed prospectively with 101 infants available for matching. In this cohort, twin pregnancies had a lower incidence of pregnancy-induced hypertension and premature rupture of membranes than singletons ( p < 0.05). The two groups were comparable in neonatal characteristics. The incidence of death or severe disability was 29.7% in twins vs. 22.8% in singletons ( p = 0.337, Fisher's exact test). The major area of deficit was in the cognitive category for both groups, 9.9% vs. 7.9% respectively. MC twins made up 35.6%; DC twins 64.4%. Twin to twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) occurred in 6.9%. Discordant growth occurred more frequently in MC pregnancies ( p = 0.016). MC twins tended to be more premature, lower in birth weight, and experience neonatal morbidity in the form of patent ductus arteriosus and sepsis ( p < 0.05) as compared to DC twins. However, the primary outcome of death or severe neurodevelopmental deficit at 18–24 months c.a. was not significantly different between the two groups, 38.9% (MC) vs. 24.6% (DC), ( p = 0.173, Fisher's exact test). Neurodevelopmental morbidity or mortality in twins with TTTS was 42%. Mortality and severe neurodevelopmental morbidity were not significantly higher in twins as compared to singletons in this cohort. However, the trend is slightly higher in twins, which may have clinical significance. Though not statistically significant, the incidence of 38.9% in adverse outcome with MC twins may be clinically significant. With the number of twins steadily increasing, further monitoring is required to determine future directions in intervention and research. Early recognition of monochorionicity remains essential to optimize care and neurodevelopment for these infants.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.328
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations10
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTwin ResearchSame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207