MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413905866 · doi:10.1159/000547995

Prediction of Dual Twin Survival after Laser for Twin-to-Twin Transfusion Syndrome

2025· article· en· W4413905866 on OpenAlexaff
Wael Abdallah, Marie-Aude Picard-Turcot, Isabelle Lafontaine-Trudel, S. Wavrant, Laurence Carmant, Marie‐Josée Raboisson, Asma Khalil, François Audibert

Bibliographic record

VenueFetal Diagnosis and Therapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTwin Twin Transfusion SyndromeDuctus venosusUmbilical arteryRetrospective cohort studyBirth weightCohortFetal weightPlacentaObstetricsFetusInternal medicineCardiologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) is associated with high perinatal morbidity and mortality. Krispin et al. [Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2023;61(4):511-7] developed a prediction model to estimate the likelihood of dual twin survival after fetoscopic laser photocoagulation (FLPC). This study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of sonographic parameters at diagnosis of TTTS treated with FLPC for postnatal dual twin survival and to validate Krispin et al.'s calculator. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of cases of TTTS treated by FLPC. The primary outcome was dual survival 30 days after delivery. The calculator used preoperative variables: donor's estimated fetal weight (EFW) <10th centile, intertwin growth discordance >25%, anterior placenta, pulsatility index (PI) in the umbilical artery (UA), ductus venosus (DV), and middle cerebral artery (MCA), with scores ranging 0-300. RESULTS: Among 157 patients, 84 (53.5%) had dual twin survival (Group A), compared to 73 (46.5%) with one or no survivors (Group B). No significant differences were seen in donor's EFW <10th centile (57.1% [A] vs. 57.5% [B], p = 0.96), intertwin growth discordance (26.2% [A] vs. 38.4% [B] p = 0.95), rates of PI >95th centile in the donor's UA and DV, and PI <5th centile in the MCA (p > 0.05). However, a significant difference was found for anterior placenta (38.1% [A] vs. 58.9% [B], p = 0.009). The observed dual survival was higher than predicted for scores ≥100. CONCLUSION: We were not able to externally validate the calculator of dual survival after laser for TTTS, especially for elevated scores. Among the parameters analyzed, only anterior placenta was significantly associated with poorer 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 score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFetal Diagnosis and TherapySame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207