MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Should Twin-Specific Growth Charts Be Used to Assess Fetal Growth in Twin Pregnancies?

2023· article· en· W4313453212 on OpenAlexaff
Liran Hiersch, Jon Barrett, Nathan S. Fox, Andrei Rebarber, John‏ Kingdom, Nir Melamed

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsPercentileFetal growthSingletonFetal weightSmall for gestational ageTwin PregnancyGestational ageFetusThird trimesterBirth weightPregnancyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(Abstracted from Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022;227(1):10–28) A hallmark of twin pregnancy is a slower fetal growth rate during the third trimester, as compared with singleton pregnancies. Twin fetuses therefore have a higher proportion that are small for gestational age (SGA), that is, with a birth weight <10th percentile for gestational age.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.210
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.136 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207