Peripheral cord insertion is associated with adverse pregnancy outcome only when accompanied by clinically significant placental pathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between umbilical cord insertion site, placental pathology and adverse pregnancy outcome in a cohort of normal and complicated pregnancies. METHODS: Sonographic measurement of the cord insertion and detailed placental pathology were performed in 309 participants. Associations between cord insertion site, placental pathology and adverse pregnancy outcome (pre-eclampsia, preterm birth, small-for-gestational age) were examined. RESULTS: A total of 93 (30%) participants were identified by pathological examination to have a peripheral cord insertion site. Only 41 of the 93 (44%) peripheral cords were detected by prenatal ultrasound. Peripherally inserted cords were associated significantly (P < 0.0001) with diagnostic placental pathology (most commonly with maternal vascular malperfusion (MVM)); of which 85% had an adverse pregnancy outcome. In cases of isolated peripheral cords, without placental pathology, the incidence of adverse outcome was not statistically different when compared to those with central cord insertion and no placental pathology (31% vs 18%; P = 0.3). A peripheral cord with an abnormal umbilical artery (UA) pulsatility index (PI) corresponded to an adverse outcome in 96% of cases compared to 29% when the UA-PI was normal. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that peripheral cord insertion is often part of the spectrum of findings of MVM disease and is associated with adverse pregnancy outcome. However, adverse outcome was uncommon when there was an isolated peripheral cord insertion and no placental pathology. Therefore, additional sonographic and biochemical features of MVM should be sought when a peripheral cord is observed. © 2023 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".