MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398243339 · doi:10.1055/s-0044-1787112

Delayed-Interval Delivery in Multiple Pregnancy: A Single-Center Experience of Five Cases

2024· article· en· W4398243339 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Roaa Hassan Gadeer, Ahlam Alhinai, Karen Fung‐Kee‐Fung, Ana Werlang

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Perinatology Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
FundersOttawa Hospital Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsGestational ageNeonatal intensive care unitGestationPregnancyRetrospective cohort studyPediatricsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives To describe the obstetric management and perinatal outcomes in multiple pregnancies with delayed-interval delivery (DID) of the cotwin in a tertiary hospital. Methods This is a retrospective chart review of all cases of DID between December 2021 and 2022 at The Ottawa Hospital. Five cases of DID were identified and reviewed to obtain information on obstetric management and maternal–neonatal outcomes. We included eligible twins and triplets. No multiples were excluded. We obtained ethics approval for this case series. Results Four sets of dichorionic diamniotic twins and one trichorionic triamniotic triplet were included. Our patients were admitted between 173/7 and 215/7 weeks of gestation. We achieved an interval delivery range between 1 and 36 days. Four out of six multiples did not survive in DID. The two surviving newborns were born at 230/7 and 232/7, stayed in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for 111 and 131 days, discharged with a weight of 3,594 and 2,743 g, respectively. All DID cases were delivered spontaneously except for two patients that required augmentation due to maternal sepsis. Conclusion Despite the high risk of maternal, fetal, and neonatal morbidity and mortality, if delivery of the first twin occurs before 20 gestational weeks, DID could be considered in selected cases to improve outcomes for the cotwin.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Perinatology ReportsSame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207