MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322757727 · doi:10.1177/10935266231156332

Eosinophilic/T-cell Chorionic Vasculitis: Its Incidence Is Increasing but It Does Not Appear to Recur in Subsequent Pregnancies

2023· article· en· W4322757727 on OpenAlexaffabout
James R. Wright, Lawrence de Koning

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric and Developmental Pathology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVasculitisIncidence (geometry)MedicineChorionic villiEosinophilicPregnancyObstetricsDermatologyPathologyPlacentaBiologyFetusDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Eosinophilic/T-cell chorionic vasculitis (E/TCV), an incidental finding primarily in third trimester placentas, is characterized by eosinophils and CD3+ T lymphocytes infiltrating at least 1 chorionic and/or stem villous vessels. Its etiology and clinical significance are unclear. Methods: Placental pathology reports issued by 8 pediatric-perinatal pathologists at Alberta Children’s Hospital were retrieved from the lab information system (2010–2022), and candidate reports were identified using a Perl script searching for “eosinophil.” Candidate diagnoses of E/TCV were validated by pathologist review. Results: 38,058 placenta reports from 34,643 patients were reviewed; 328 cases of E/TCV were identified, for an overall incidence of 0.86%. Incidence increased 23% per year, from 0.11% in 2010 to 1.5% in 2021 ( P < .01). This temporal change was observed for all pathologists; the incidence of identified multifocality also increased over time ( P < .01). Umbilical vascular involvement was exceedingly rare. No variation in incidence was attributable to season. We received more than 1 placenta from 46 mothers with an E/TCV placental diagnosis; examination of >1 placenta did not reveal any mother with >1 E/TCV diagnosis. Conclusions: The incidence of E/TCV increased steadily over a ~12-year period and no recurrent cases were observed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric and Developmental PathologySame topicPregnancy and Medication ImpactFrench-language works237,207