MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400792546 · doi:10.1111/ajo.13855

Temporal and external validation of the algorithm predicting first trimester outcome of a viable pregnancy

2024· article· en· W4400792546 on OpenAlexaff
N. Stamatopoulos, D.H. Ngo, Chuan Lü, Mercedes Espada, Mathew Leonardi, G. Condous

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersRANZCOG Women's Health Foundation
KeywordsGestational sacMedicineMiscarriagePregnancyObstetricsVaginal bleedingLogistic regressionGestationLive birthGynecologyGestational ageInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Symptoms like vaginal bleeding or abdominal pain in early pregnancy can create anxiety about potential miscarriage. Previous studies have demonstrated ultrasonographic variables at the first trimester transvaginal scan (TVS) which can assist in predicting outcomes by 12 weeks gestation. AIM: To validate the miscarriage risk prediction model (MRP) in women who present with a viable intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) at the primary ultrasound. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-centre diagnostic study of 1490 patients was performed between 2011 and 2019 for retrospective external and 2017-2019 for prospective temporal validation. The reference standard was a viable pregnancy at 12 + 6 weeks. The MRP model is a multinomial logistic regression model based on maternal age, embryonic heart rate, logarithm (gestational sac volume/crown-rump length (CRL)) ratio, CRL and presence or absence of clots. RESULTS: Temporal validation data from 290 viable IUPs were collected: 225 were viable at the end of the first trimester, 31 had miscarried and 34 were lost to follow-up. External validation data from 1203 viable IUPs were collected at two other ultrasound units: 1062 were viable, 69 had miscarried and 72 were lost to follow-up. Temporal validation with a cut-off of 0.1 demonstrated: area under the curve (AUC) of 0.8 (0.7-0.9), sensitivity 66.7%, specificity 83.9%, positive predictive value (PPV) 35.7%, negative predictive value (NPV) 94.9%, positive likelihood ration (LR+) 4.1 and negative LR (LR-) 0.4. External validation demonstrated: AUC 0.7 (0.7-0.8), sensitivity 44.9%, specificity 90.4%, PPV 23.3%, NPV 96.2%, LR+ 4.6 and LR- 0.6 (0.4-0.7). CONCLUSION: The MRP model is not able to be used in real time for counselling, and management should be individualised.

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)0.000
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 score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and GynaecologySame topicEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207