Distinguishing between cornual, angular and interstitial ectopic pregnancy: A case report and a brief literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For all clinical purposes, cornual, angular, and interstitial pregnancies are considered ectopic pregnancies that can have grave consequences for the patient. In this article, we describe and distinguish 3 types of ectopic pregnancies in the cornual region of the uterus. The authors advocate using the "cornual pregnancy" term only for ectopic pregnancies in malformed uteruses. We describe an ectopic pregnancy in a 25-year-old G2P1 patient in the cornual region of the uterus that was missed twice sonographically in the second trimester and had almost fatal consequences in the patient. Radiologists and sonographers should be aware of the sonographic diagnosis of angular, cornual and interstitial pregnancies. Whenever possible, first-trimester transvaginal ultrasound scanning is crucial for diagnosing these 3 types of ectopic pregnancies in the cornual region. In the second and third trimesters, ultrasound tends to become equivocal; hence alternate imaging, such as MRI, might add additional value to the management of the patient. A case report assessment and a comprehensive literature review comprising 61 case reports of ectopic pregnancy in the second and third trimesters are diligently undertaken in the Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases. The major strength of our study is that it is one of the few studies that describe a literature review of ectopic pregnancy in the cornual region exclusively in the second and third trimesters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".