Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This research's aim was to determine Ontarian sonographers’ awareness of vasa previa (VP). Particularly, their knowledge of the risk factors for and methods used to exclude the presence of VP. This research also endeavoured to establish if imaging the placental cord insertion site is routine practice in workplaces in Ontario. Methods: An on-line survey was disseminated to 1,200 sonographers in Ontario, Canada who were members of the Canadian Society of Diagnostic Medical Sonographers (CSDMS). In total, 213 sonographers participated. Results: Analysis of open questions regarding risk factors for VP revealed both themes that were indeed associated with VP and those that were not. Succenturiate/bi-lobed/ accessory placenta was indicated as a risk factor for VP by 173 (81.2%) of participants. Velamentous cord insertion was chosen by 169 (79.3%) and low-lying second trimester placenta followed with 154 (72.3%). Pregnancies obtained via in-vitro fertilization were selected by 72 (33.8%) participants. There was more congruence regarding techniques used to exclude VP. Two-hundred and four (95.8%) participants stated they would utilize colour Doppler and 181 (85.0%) indicated that transvaginal imaging would be their method of choice to exclude VP. The placental cord insertion site is imaged routinely by 151 (70.9%) of the participating sonographers. Conclusions: It is apparent that an overall awareness of VP does not exist among sonographers participating in this study. There is no statistically significant relationship between increased awareness and length of career, workplace, or skill set. It appears that increased awareness among sonographers is indiscriminate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".