Doppler ultrasound and first trimester pregnancy: not always a happy marriage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sir, De Vos et al. (2024) propose the assessment of the morphologic development of the utero-placental vasculature in the first trimester as a potential early indicator of placental insufficiency leading to placenta-related pregnancy complications. The evaluation followed a systematic protocol including standardized ultrasound settings, transvaginal 3D sweeps of the embryo and gestational sac including the placenta, and the visualization of the utero-placental vasculature using a 3D Power Doppler sweep at 7, 9, and 11 weeks. The authors state that ‘all ultrasound examinations were performed according to international guidelines on safe use of Doppler ultrasound in the first trimester of pregnancy (ALARA-principle)’ citing the manuscript of Drukker et al. (2020). This paper provides an overview of the adherence to recommendations and awareness of ultrasound practitioners performing routine obstetric ultrasound scans but does not constitute a guideline. The International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology published the updated version of the safety recommendations on the safe use of Doppler for ultrasound examination in the first 13 + 6 weeks of pregnancy in 2021, stating that: ‘Spectral Doppler, color flow imaging, power imaging and other Doppler ultrasound modalities should not be used routinely in the embryonic period unless clinically indicated’ (Salvesen et al., 2021). The recommendation is based on the absence of potential clinical benefits of performing Doppler ultrasound in the embryonic period. Therefore, we believe that an important message for the readers is that there is no clinical or additional research perspective for the Doppler study of the morphologic development of the utero-placental vasculature in the embryonic period.
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 | 0.004 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.011 |
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".