MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409962751 · doi:10.1002/pmf2.70027

Effect of very preterm delivery on outcomes following in utero spina bifida repair

2025· article· en· W4409962751 on OpenAlexaff
Michael V. Zaretsky, Jagruti Anadkat, Kelly Bennett, Yair J. Blumenfeld, Christina Buchanan, Caitlin Clifford, Timothy M. Crombleholme, Samer K. Elbabaa, Stephen P. Emery, William Goodnight, Hanmin Lee, Joseph B. Lillegard, Foong‐Yen Lim, François I. Luks, Virginia Lijewski, Jena L. Miller, Ueli Moehrlen, Julie S. Moldenhauer, Anita J. Moon‐Grady, Mauro Schenone, Daniel Skupski, Aimen F. Shaaban, KuoJen Tsao, Tim Van Mieghem, Amy J. Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenuePregnancy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Dysraphism and Malformations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSpina bifidaPreterm deliveryIn uteroMedicineObstetricsPediatricsPregnancyFetusBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: In utero fetal spina bifida repair decreases the risk for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion including ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt placement, reverses hindbrain herniation, and improves motor function with a higher likelihood of independent ambulation. Unfortunately, in utero surgery can be complicated by preterm delivery. The goal of this study was to compare pregnancy and neonatal outcomes between individuals who delivered very preterm, and those who delivered later in gestation following in-utero spina bifida repair. Methods: Data from the North American Fetal Therapy Network (NAFTNet) Fetal Myelomeningocele Consortium (fMMC) registry collected from 2011 to 2024 were analyzed. Three cohorts of patients were categorized by gestational age at delivery and compared: <30 weeks, 30-34 weeks, and >34 weeks. Comparisons between groups for maternal and delivery outcomes were completed for the entire cohort and then analyzed for those with available CSF diversion data up to one year of life. Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests were used to compare categorical variables, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine if there are significant differences between the distributions of the three groups. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant. Results: A total of 1,213 patients were analyzed (<30-weeks n = 111 [9.2%], 30-34 weeks n = 323 [26.6%], >34-weeks n = 779 [64.2%]). Overall fetal and neonatal mortality was 2.2%, 85% of which occurred in the <30 weeks cohort, where perinatal mortality was 21%. Latency from fetal surgery to delivery averaged 2.1 weeks for the <30 weeks group. Rates of abruption, chorioamnionitis, and spontaneous labor were higher in the <30 week group compared to later gestational age cohorts. Neonatal morbidity was also significantly higher in the <30 weeks cohort for sepsis, apnea, respiratory distress, patent ductus arteriosus, intraventricular hemorrhage and periventricular leukomalacia in the <30 weeks cohort. CSF diversion data was available for 677 neonates (<30 weeks n = 53, 30-34 weeks n = 186, >34 weeks n = 438). There was no significant difference in VP shunt placement between the different gestational age groups. Conclusion: Very preterm birth following in utero spina bifida repair results in significant perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity. Delivery prior to 30 weeks of gestation occurs in 9% of patients after in utero spina bifida repair, resulting in a 21% perinatal mortality rate. However, even among those who delivered very preterm, a reduction in VP shunt rates, a benefit of in utero repair, appears to be preserved. Further data are warranted to assess the impact of prematurity following in-utero surgery on ambulation and developmental outcomes.

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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePregnancySame topicSpinal Dysraphism and MalformationsFrench-language works237,207