The Proper Diagnosis of Thrombophilic Status in Preventing Fetal Growth Restriction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fetal growth restriction is an important part of monitoring a pregnancy. Because guidelines or diagnostic criteria for either minor or major thrombophilia are scarce, this systematic review aims to summarize the present knowledge in the field. We performed the CRD42022376006 protocol in Prospero with a systematic literature search in PubMed and Web of Science databases and included original full-text articles (randomized control trials and clinical trials) from the last 10 years, published in English, and with the "thrombophilia AND (pregnancy OR diagnostic criteria) AND fetal growth restriction" criteria. After two researchers extracted the articles of interest, they were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and eight articles were included. The elements from the thrombophilia diagnostic predict IUGR, factor V Leiden mutation, MTHFR C667T mutation, protein S deficiency, antithrombin deficiency, factor VII polymorphism, and antiphospholipid antibodies, while the association of protein C, PAI-1 and certain combinations of mutations are still under debate and require the collection of more data. The present systematic review provides an extensive picture of the actual knowledge about thrombophilia diagnosis and its links with pregnancy complications, such as intrauterine growth restriction, despite its limitation in the inclusion of other actually debated disorders such as PAI-1 mutation, protein C deficiency and other thrombophilia types.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".