MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246199770 · doi:10.1097/aog.0b013e31818c15a7

Sonography of Lower Uterine Segment Thickness and Prediction of Uterine Rupture

2009· article· en· W4246199770 on OpenAlexaff
Marie-Ève Bergeron, Nicole Jastrow, Normand Brassard, Gaëtan Paris, Emmanuel Bujold

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de MontréalCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUterine ruptureMedicineCutoffUltrasoundCesarean deliveryUterusGynecologyRadiologyPregnancyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment was undertaken to study the degree of thinning and, thus, to predict uterine rupture. However, the best measuring technique and recommended cutoff values remain controversial. CASE: Sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment at 36 weeks of gestation in a 31-year-old patient with prior low transverse cesarean delivery revealed a full thickness of 3.6 mm and a myometrial layer of 1.1 mm. Nevertheless, the patient experienced a large uterine rupture during a trial of labor at term. CONCLUSION: In this case, there was a discrepancy between the full thickness and the myometrial layer, which could be representative of the lower uterine segment resistance. Such a case emphasizes the need for a consensus on sonographic measuring techniques for the prediction of uterine rupture.

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)0.008
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrics and GynecologySame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207