MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reproductive Outcomes in Women With Congenital Uterine Anomalies Detected by Three-Dimensional Ultrasound Screening

2001· article· en· W4251888487 on OpenAlexaff
B. Woelfer, Rehan Salim, Saikat Banerjee, J. Elson, Lesley Regan, D. Jurkovic

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGynecological conditions and treatments
Canadian institutionsSt Mary's Hospital Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsGynecologyUltrasoundRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief OBJECTIVE To determine reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies detected incidentally by three-dimensional ultrasound. METHODS We studied 1089 women with no history of infertility or recurrent miscarriage who were seen for a transvaginal ultrasound scan. They were screened for uterine abnormalities using three-dimensional ultrasound. We determined prevalence of miscarriage and preterm labor in women with normal and abnormal uterine morphology. RESULTS We found that 983 women had a normally shaped uterine cavity, 72 an arcuate, 29 a subseptate, and five a bicornuate uterus. Women with a subseptate uterus had a significantly higher proportion of first-trimester loss (Z = 4.68, P < .01) compared with women with a normal uterus. Women with an arcuate uterus had a significantly greater proportion of second-trimester loss (Z = 5.76, P < .01) and preterm labor (Z = 4.1, P < .01). There were no other significant differences in pregnancy outcomes between women with normal and abnormal uterine morphology. CONCLUSION This study shows the potential value of three-dimensional ultrasound and confirmed that women with congenital uterine anomalies were more likely to have adverse pregnancy outcomes than women with a normal uterus. Women with a diagnosis of congenital uterine anomaly have more adverse reproductive 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations128
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrics and GynecologySame topicGynecological conditions and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207