Comparison of circulating maternal placenta growth factor levels and sonographic evaluation of patients with abnormal first trimester screening analytes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of mid-trimester placental growth factor (PlGF) in patients with abnormal circulating levels of first-trimester biomarkers. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study including singleton pregnancies complicated by abnormal first-trimester biomarkers (2017-2020). Pregnancies complicated with chromosomal/structural anomalies were excluded. All patients had ultrasound imaging including uterine artery Doppler combined with measurement of maternal circulating PlGF. Sonographic findings, maternal and perinatal outcomes, and placental histopathology were compared between pregnancies with normal and low (<10th percentile for gestational age) PlGF levels. The diagnostic accuracy of PlGF for the prediction of specific placental-mediated complications was compared with the uterine artery Doppler assessment and additional sonographic findings. RESULTS: Seventy-one pregnancies were assessed, of which 35 (49.3%) had low PlGF levels. Maternal sociodemographic characteristics, nulliparity, and aspirin consumption were comparable. In comparison with patients with normal PlGF levels, individuals with low PlGF levels had a higher rate of fetal growth restriction (EFW <3rd centile; 42.9% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.001), preterm-preeclampsia (22.9% vs. 0%, p = 0.002), preterm delivery <34 weeks (54.3% vs. 8.3%, p < 0.001) and maternal vascular malperfusion placental pathology (72.7% vs. 21.7%, p < 0.001) following delivery. Adjusting for uterine artery Doppler and fetal biometry status, mid-trimester low PlGF remained significantly associated with these placental-mediated complications. The predictive capacity of PlGF outperformed ultrasound imaging with only minimal diagnostic improvement when ultrasound information was combined with PlGF status. CONCLUSION: In pregnancies with unexplained abnormal first-trimester biomarkers, mid-trimester PlGF outperformed a comprehensive ultrasound assessment in the identification of a subset of patients destined to develop placental dysfunction. This blood test may be an alternative initial approach in this context, especially where access to specialist care is more geographically challenging.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".