Compare the Histological Features between the Normal and Hypertensive Placenta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of the current research was to investigate the morphology and histology of placentas collected from moms who had PIH and to compare those results to placentas taken from women who had normal pregnancies. Study Design: The study was conducted at Anatomy department of Women Medical and Dental College Hospital Abbottabad and Mohi-ud-Din Islamic Medical College, Mirpur, AJK during the period from February 2021 to July 2021. Place and Duration: Observational/comparative study Methods: In this study total 80 pregnancies, 40 normal placenta’s and 40 hypertensive placenta’s were presented. At first, the physical aspects of placentas, also known as their morphological traits, were noted. In order to investigate the histology, pieces of each placenta measuring 5 millimetres in thickness were removed. After this, the tissue underwent further histological processing, after which it was fixed in formal saline at a concentration of 10 percent. It was noted down how much newborns weighed at birth. SPSS 23.0 was used to analyze complete data. Results: Placental weight, size, surface area and number of cotyledons were decreased in hypertensive placentas, whereas regions of infarction, retroplacental clot, and calcification were increased. Hyalinized villi and atherosclerosis have been reported in hypertensive placentas (p0.05). Foetal mortality and morbidity were closely linked to these alterations. We also found that among women with high blood pressure who had the aforementioned histological alterations in their placentas, the risk of foetal death and morbidity was higher. Conclusion: We concluded that, PIH reduces placenta weight and size. Changes in utero-placental blood flow may induce placental insufficiency. It affects newborn birth weight. PIH impacts placenta shape, histology, and foetal development. Keywords: Placenta, Pregnancy-induced hypertension, Histological, Morphological, Mortality, Morbidity
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".