MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133073134

Prevalence of hypothyroidism in recurrent pregnancy loss in firsttrimester

2008· article· en· W7133073134 on OpenAlexfundno aff
V Rama Chandra Rao, A Lakshmi, MD Sadhnani

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Genetics
KeywordsPregnancyEuthyroidFirst trimesterGestationGestational ageThyroid
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: To determine the frequency of hypothyroidism in women with recurrent pregnancy loss in first trimester in the Indian population. Settings and Design: The study included 163 non-pregnant women with recurrent pregnancy loss in a gestational age up to ≤12 weeks verified by a pregnancy test or ultrasonography, and a total of 170 age matched women with at least one successful pregnancy and no history of miscarriages were selected as controls. Methods: Levels of thyroid hormones T3, T4 and TSH were estimated in non-pregnant women with RPL and controls. Results: Hypothyroidism was found in seven (4.12%) women with RPL and one in control group. The differences in the levels of serum T3, T4 and TSH between euthyroid and hypothyroid women were found significant in women with RPL in first trimester. Statistical Analysis: The statistical analyses were performed with the use of student′s two-tailed t-test. Conclusion: The study demonstrates that hypothyroidism has a statistically significant relationship with recurrent pregnancy loss in the first trimester and suggests that diagnosis of hypothyroidism could help couples with recurrent pregnancy loss to have a successful outcome in subsequent pregnancies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicThyroid Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207