MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Late-onset fetal growth restriction management: a national survey

2022· article· en· W4308553184 on OpenAlexaff
Marco La Verde, Marco Torella, G Mainini, Antonio Mollo, Maurizio Guida, Mario Passaro, Mattia Dominoni, Bárbara Gardella, Ettore Cicinelli, Pasquale De Franciscis

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerva Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity Hospital Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFetal growthMedicineFetusObstetricsPediatricsPregnancyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Fetal growth restriction (FGR) is an obstetric condition that increases the risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. FGR antenatal care aims to decrease fetal morbidity and mortality through optimal fetal monitoring. However, no univocal strategies for late-onset FGR outpatient management are available, and this survey investigated gynaecologists' attitudes concerning outpatient frequency tests.METHODS: We mailed a survey to 429 Italian gynaecologists. The primary purpose was the ambulatory care of late-onset FGR without doppler alterations evaluation. The queries estimated the self-reported medical practice regarding cardiotocography (CTG) and obstetric ultrasound exams before hospitalization. Statistical analysis was performed with Stata 14.1 (Stata corp., College Station, TX, USA) for symmetrically distributed continuous variables, and the mean differences were analyzed using the t-test. Where appropriate, the proportions between the groups were evaluated using Fisher's exact or Chi-square test. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.RESULTS: 128 responses (29.8%) from the 429 SCCAL members were available for the survey. 39.9% of respondents had a late FGR standardized protocol. Regarding non-severe FGR with normal fetal doppler, 70.8% suggested a fetal doppler study after one week (92/128), 13.8% (18/128) and 6.9% (9/128) proposed the exam, respectively, two and three times for a week. 0.8% (1/128) of respondents had a daily doppler exam, 7.7% (10/128) did not answer, and 3.1% (4/128) repeated the ultrasound exam to time for a week. The antenatal CTG was offered: 70.8% (92/128) of gynaecologists recommended one weekly CTG, whereas 13.8% (18/128) suggested two. 6.9% (9/128) recommended three weekly tests and 0.8% a daily test. 7.7% (10/128) of gynaecologists did not respond. At least, we investigated the gynaecologist's recommendations for outpatient EFW evaluation: 59.4% (76/128) repeated EFW after two weeks, 31.3% (40/128) after one week. 3.9% (4/128) and 3.1 (4/128) recommended EFW after three weeks and twice a week.CONCLUSIONS: Gynaecologists recommend unnecessary cardiotocography and ultrasound Doppler exams for non-severe late-onset FGR with normal doppler. However, additional studies and comprehensive surveys are needed to support a standardized protocol and assess the feto-maternal outcomes impact.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinerva Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207