Autopsy-Based Growth Charts May under-Detect Fetal Growth Restriction at Autopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Accurate identification of fetal growth restriction in fetal autopsy is critical for assessing causes of death. We examined the impact of using a chart derived from ultrasound measurements of healthy fetuses (World Health Organization fetal growth chart) versus a chart commonly used by pathologists (Archie et al.) derived from fetal autopsy-based populations in diagnosing small-for-gestational-age (SGA) birth in perinatal deaths. Study Design: We examined perinatal deaths that underwent autopsy at BC Women’s Hospital, 2015-2021. Weight centiles were assigned using the ultrasound-based fetal growth chart for birthweight and autopsy-based growth chart for autopsy weight. Results: Among 352 fetuses, 30% were SGA based on the ultrasound-based fetal growth chart versus 17% using the autopsy-based growth chart (p < 0.001). Weight centiles were lower when using the ultrasound-based versus autopsy-based growth chart (median difference of 9 centiles [IQR 2, 20]). Conclusions: Autopsy-based growth charts may under-classify SGA status compared to ultrasound-based fetal growth charts.
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 | 0.014 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".