Optimizing Care for High-Risk Multiple Pregnancy with POCUS – A Case of Quadruplet Pregnancy Early Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Managing multiple pregnancies is challenging and requires careful evaluation. Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) has emerged as a potentially crucial tool in assessing suspected first-trimester pregnancies. However, its role in evaluating multiple pregnancies remains uncertain. We present the case of a 36-year-old Ghanaian female who presented with acute vaginal bleeding after undergoing in vitro fertilization. A bedside transabdominal POCUS identified four intrauterine gestations with fetal poles and cardiac activity, suggesting a quadruplet viable pregnancy. A subsequent transvaginal ultrasound confirmed the findings. The patient was discharged with a follow-up appointment with an Obstetrician-Gynecologist. This case highlights the significance of POCUS in early pregnancy diagnosis, facilitating accurate identification and appropriate referral for further management. It also demonstrates the utility of POCUS in determining gestational age and viability. To our knowledge, no published case reports specifically address the diagnosis of a quadruplet pregnancy, emphasizing the role of POCUS in optimizing care for high-risk multiple pregnancies.
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) | 0.001 | 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".