ArticleRoyal Society open science2025
Partial dependence of ultrasonically estimated fetal weight on biometric parameters.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Partial dependence of ultrasonically estimated fetal weight on biometric parameters.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate assessment of estimated fetal weight (EFW) is crucial in obstetrics, yet the exact contribution of biometric parameters in sonographic formulas remains unclear. Twenty-six datasets from published studies spanning diverse populations and gestational ages were analysed, incorporating measurements of biparietal diameter (BPD), abdominal circumference (AC), head circumference (HC) and femur length (FL). Sobol' global sensitivity analysis-a variance‑based approach-quantified each parameter's influence on EFW across 29 established formulas, and bootstrapping estimated the median of the sensitivity indices with 95% confidence intervals. Results showed that AC was generally the dominant predictor, especially in later pregnancy, while BPD, HC and FL exhibited variable importance depending on formula and gestational age. Two-thirds of the formulas demonstrated parameter crossover effects, and nearly half had at least one parameter with minimal contribution. These findings indicate that parameter significance differs by both formula and gestational age, suggesting that clinicians should select EFW formulas based on gestational age, measurement reliability and fetal characteristics. Estimates made with fewer than the intended parameters can be viable in emergencies. The proposed methodology can guide the refinement of existing formulas and the development of improved fetal weight estimation models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.