Maternal experience of fetal movements from a child with AMC: MECA survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The prevailing assumption is that fetal movements are always absent or reduced in pregnancies affected by arthrogryposis multiplex congenita (AMC), leading to the belief that mothers do not perceive or perceive less fetal movements during affected pregnancies. This study aims to investigate the maternal perception of fetal movements in pregnancies with a child diagnosed with AMC and to challenge this assumption. Additionally, it seeks to expand current knowledge on the perception by comparing with pregnancies with children not affected by AMC. METHODS: A survey-based study was conducted in collaboration with international patient support groups. The survey included mothers with at least one child diagnosed with AMC. The questionnaire covered not only the presence of movements, but also other aspects such as daily movements, consistency throughout the pregnancy, and perceived normalcy. A subgroup comparison was made between mothers who had both an affected and non-affected pregnancy, as well as by pregnancy order and its impact on clinical follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 170 mothers participated in this survey and 118 (70 %) of them had both an affected and non-affected pregnancy and 52 (30 %) had pregnancies with AMC-affected children alone. Most (77 %) perceived fetal movements during AMC-affected pregnancies, though fewer described them as daily (66 %), stable (51 %), or normal (44 %) compared to unaffected pregnancies. CONCLUSION: This study showed that fetal movements can be perceived by the majority of mothers of children with AMC. The presence of fetal movements should not rule out the possibility of AMC in case of fetal contractures.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".