BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35752169)

  • 1. Applying Automated Machine Learning to Predict Mode of Delivery Using Ongoing Intrapartum Data in Laboring Patients.
    Wong MS; Wells M; Zamanzadeh D; Akre S; Pevnick JM; Bui AAT; Gregory KD
    Am J Perinatol; 2024 May; 41(S 01):e412-e419. PubMed ID: 35752169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean deliveries using machine learning.
    Lipschuetz M; Guedalia J; Rottenstreich A; Novoselsky Persky M; Cohen SM; Kabiri D; Levin G; Yagel S; Unger R; Sompolinsky Y
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Jun; 222(6):613.e1-613.e12. PubMed ID: 32007491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Real-time data analysis using a machine learning model significantly improves prediction of successful vaginal deliveries.
    Guedalia J; Lipschuetz M; Novoselsky-Persky M; Cohen SM; Rottenstreich A; Levin G; Yagel S; Unger R; Sompolinsky Y
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Sep; 223(3):437.e1-437.e15. PubMed ID: 32434000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A prediction tool for mode of delivery in twin pregnancies-a secondary analysis of the Twin Birth Study.
    Aviram A; Barrett J; Mei-Dan E; Yoon EW; Melamed N
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2024 Jul; 231(1):124.e1-124.e11. PubMed ID: 37979823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Prediction Model for Vaginal Birth After Induction of Labor in Women With Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy.
    Beninati MJ; Ramos SZ; Danilack VA; Has P; Savitz DA; Werner EF
    Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Aug; 136(2):402-410. PubMed ID: 32649502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A Model to Predict Vaginal Delivery and Maternal and Neonatal Morbidity in Low-Risk Nulliparous Patients at Term.
    Costantine MM; Sandoval G; Grobman WA; Bailit JL; Reddy UM; Wapner RJ; Varner MW; Thorp JM; Caritis SN; Prasad M; Tita ATN; Sorokin Y; Rouse DJ; Blackwell SC; Tolosa JE;
    Am J Perinatol; 2022 May; 39(7):786-796. PubMed ID: 33075842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. New labor curves of dilation and station to improve the accuracy of predicting labor progress.
    Hamilton EF; Zhoroev T; Warrick PA; Tarca AL; Garite TJ; Caughey AB; Melillo J; Prasad M; Neilson D; Singson P; McKay K; Romero R
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2024 Jul; 231(1):1-18. PubMed ID: 38423450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Labor progress determined by ultrasound is different in women requiring cesarean delivery from those who experience a vaginal delivery following induction of labor.
    Tse WT; Chaemsaithong P; Chan WWY; Kwan AHW; Huang J; Appiah K; Chong KC; Poon LC
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2019 Oct; 221(4):335.e1-335.e18. PubMed ID: 31153931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Severe maternal and neonatal morbidity after attempted operative vaginal delivery.
    Panelli DM; Leonard SA; Joudi N; Girsen AI; Judy AE; El-Sayed YY; Gilbert WM; Lyell DJ
    Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM; 2021 May; 3(3):100339. PubMed ID: 33631384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A simple model to predict the complicated operative vaginal deliveries using vacuum or forceps.
    Sainz JA; García-Mejido JA; Aquise A; Borrero C; Bonomi MJ; Fernández-Palacín A
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2019 Feb; 220(2):193.e1-193.e12. PubMed ID: 30391443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Association between provider type and cesarean birth in healthy nulliparous laboring women: A retrospective cohort study.
    Carlson NS; Corwin EJ; Hernandez TL; Holt E; Lowe NK; Hurt KJ
    Birth; 2018 Jun; 45(2):159-168. PubMed ID: 29388247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Prediction of severe adverse neonatal outcomes at the second stage of labour using machine learning: a retrospective cohort study.
    Guedalia J; Sompolinsky Y; Novoselsky Persky M; Cohen SM; Kabiri D; Yagel S; Unger R; Lipschuetz M
    BJOG; 2021 Oct; 128(11):1824-1832. PubMed ID: 33713380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The value of intrapartum factors in predicting maternal morbidity.
    Clapp MA; James KE; McCoy TH; Perlis RH; Kaimal AJ
    Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM; 2022 Jan; 4(1):100485. PubMed ID: 34517146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Pushing the bounds of second stage in term nulliparas with a predictive model.
    Gimovsky AC; Levine JT; Pham A; Dunn J; Zhou D; Peaceman AM
    Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM; 2019 Aug; 1(3):100028. PubMed ID: 33345792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Fetal descent in nulliparous women assessed by ultrasound: a longitudinal study.
    Hjartardóttir H; Lund SH; Benediktsdóttir S; Geirsson RT; Eggebø TM
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2021 Apr; 224(4):378.e1-378.e15. PubMed ID: 33039395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Predicting the chance of vaginal delivery after one cesarean section: validation and elaboration of a published prediction model.
    Fagerberg MC; Maršál K; Källén K
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2015 May; 188():88-94. PubMed ID: 25801723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Predictors of vaginal delivery in medically indicated early preterm induction of labor.
    Sievert RA; Kuper SG; Jauk VC; Parrish M; Biggio JR; Harper LM
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Sep; 217(3):375.e1-375.e7. PubMed ID: 28526449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Sonographic prediction of outcome of vacuum deliveries: a multicenter, prospective cohort study.
    Kahrs BH; Usman S; Ghi T; Youssef A; Torkildsen EA; Lindtjørn E; Østborg TB; Benediktsdottir S; Brooks L; Harmsen L; Romundstad PR; Salvesen KÅ; Lees CC; Eggebø TM
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Jul; 217(1):69.e1-69.e10. PubMed ID: 28327433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Prediction of cesarean delivery in the term nulliparous woman: results from the prospective, multicenter Genesis study.
    Burke N; Burke G; Breathnach F; McAuliffe F; Morrison JJ; Turner M; Dornan S; Higgins JR; Cotter A; Geary M; McParland P; Daly S; Cody F; Dicker P; Tully E; Malone FD;
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Jun; 216(6):598.e1-598.e11. PubMed ID: 28213060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of different methods of measuring angle of progression in prediction of labor outcome.
    Frick A; Kostiv V; Vojtassakova D; Akolekar R; Nicolaides KH
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Mar; 55(3):391-400. PubMed ID: 31692170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.