Uterocervical angle in predicting spontaneous preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the uterocervical angles in term and spontaneous preterm birth cohorts and to compare the test characteristics of the uterocervical angle and cervical length in the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth. A systematic search of published literature from January 1, 1945, to May 15, 2022, was performed using the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The search was not restricted. The references of all relevant articles were reviewed. Randomized control trials, nonrandomized control trials, and observational studies were evaluated for primary comparisons. Included studies compared the uterocervical angles in term and spontaneous preterm birth cohorts and compared the uterocervical angle with cervical length in the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth. Of note, 2 researchers independently selected studies and evaluated the risk of bias with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort and case-control studies. Mean differences and odds ratios were calculated using a random effects model for inclusion and methodological quality. The primary outcomes were uterocervical angle and successful prediction of spontaneous preterm birth. Moreover, posthoc analysis comparing the uterocervical angle and cervical length together was performed. A total of 15 cohort studies with 6218 patients were included. The uterocervical angle was larger in the spontaneous preterm birth cohorts (mean difference, 13.76; 95% confidence interval, 10.61–16.91; P<.00001; I2=90%). Sensitivity and specificity analyses demonstrated lower sensitivities with cervical length alone and uterocervical angle plus cervical length than with uterocervical angle alone. Pooled sensitivities for uterocervical angle and cervical length alone were 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.66–0.73; I2=90%) and 0.46 (95% confidence interval, 0.42–0.49; I2=96%), respectively. Pooled specificities for uterocervical angle and cervical length were 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.66–0.68; I2=97%) and 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.89–0.91; I2=99%), respectively. The areas under the curve for uterocervical angle and cervical length were 0.77 and 0.82, respectively. Uterocervical angle alone or with cervical length was not superior to cervical length alone in predicting spontaneous preterm birth.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".