MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396676757 · doi:10.1002/jum.16470

Revisiting the Implications of a Wide or Narrow Fetal Cavum Septi Pellucidi

2024· article· en· W4396676757 on OpenAlexaff
Joanna Sichitiu, Kimia Ghannad‐Zadeh, Tim Van Mieghem, Ants Toi, Elena Greenfeld, David Chitayat, Shiri Shinar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre for Social InnovationUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFetusObstetricsAnatomyPregnancyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To investigate short-term neonatal developmental outcomes in fetuses with an isolated wide or narrow cavum septi pellucidi (CSP) using new reference ranges. METHODS: A cross-sectional study on fetuses at 16 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks of gestation between December 2020 and January 2022. CSP width reference ranges were constructed from low-risk pregnancies. Wide and narrow CSPs were defined as measurements above the 95th percentile and below the 5th percentile, respectively. For the primary outcome fetuses with normal neurosonograms were included. Neonatal developmental outcomes were assessed using the Survey of Well-being of Young Children (SWYC). RESULTS: A total of 352 fetuses were included in this study, of whom 138 were healthy and had uncomplicated neonatal outcomes. These fetuses constituted the control group and were used to construct the CSP width reference ranges. Of 185 fetuses in the neurosonography group, 9.7% had wide and 7.6% had narrow CSPs, of whom 33.3% and 22.2%, respectively, scored below the SWYC threshold for expected developmental milestones, a rate similar to that reported in the general population. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a prenatally isolated wide or narrow CSP does not appear to increase the risk of neonatal neurodevelopmental delay.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ultrasound in MedicineSame topicFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207