Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 77

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting Preterm Labour: Current Status and Future Prospects

Georgiou, Harry M., Di Quinzio, Megan K. W., Permezel, Michael, Brennecke, Shaun P.·2015·Disease Markers

Abstract

Preterm labour and birth are a major cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Despite modern advances in obstetric and neonatal management, the rate of preterm birth in the developed world is increasing. Yet even though numerous risk factors associated with preterm birth have been identified, the ability to accurately predict when labour will occur remains elusive, whether it is at a term or preterm gestation. In the latter case, this is likely due to the multifactorial aetiology of preterm labour wherein women may display different clinical presentations that lead to preterm birth. The discovery of novel biomarkers that could reliably identify women who will subsequently deliver preterm may allow for timely medical intervention and targeted therapeutic treatments aimed at improving maternal and fetal outcomes. Various body fluids including amniotic fluid, urine, saliva, blood (serum/plasma), and cervicovaginal fluid all provide a rich protein source of putative biochemical markers that may be causative or reflective of the various pathophysiological disorders of pregnancy, including preterm labour. This short review will highlight recent advances in the field of biomarker discovery and the utility of single and multiple biomarkers for the prediction of preterm birth in the absence of intra-amniotic infection.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1155/2015/435014

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 75

  1. 10.1053/sper.2001.26417 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/j.ogrm.2007.06.004 · DOI
  3. 10.1542/peds.2008-3743 · DOI
  4. 10.1542/peds.2013-1131 · DOI
  5. 10.1053/sper.2001.27548 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1016/s0272-2712(03)00029-5 · DOI
  7. 10.1097/01.aog.0000150559.59531.b2 · DOI
  8. 10.1002/uog.7338 · DOI
  9. 10.1002/14651858.CD004947.pub3 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1056/nejmra050435 · DOI
  11. 2013, Deutsches Arzteblatt International, 110, 227
  12. 10.1155/2014/807196 · DOI
  13. 10.1371/journal.pone.0039154 · DOI
  14. 10.1159/000335686 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318184181a · DOI
  16. 10.1016/s0002-9378(99)70111-0 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6661(199901/02)8:1<17::AID-MFM4>3.0.CO;2-R · DOI
  18. 10.1002/uog.7457 · DOI
  19. 2013, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 1
  20. 10.1067/mob.2001.116752 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/S0301-2115(00)00483-8 · DOI
  22. 10.1136/bmj.294.6567.270 · DOI
  23. 10.1002/pmic.200300790 · DOI
  24. 10.1530/rep.1.00524 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.placenta.2005.11.003 · DOI
  26. 10.1586/14789450.2014.872564 · DOI
  27. 10.1177/1933719109353454 · DOI
  28. 10.1177/1933719113503415 · DOI
  29. 10.3109/14767058.2012.667177 · DOI
  30. 10.1515/jpm-2012-0034 · DOI
  31. 2014, The Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 59, 154
  32. 10.3109/14767058.2012.733750 · DOI
  33. 10.1196/annals.1365.043 · DOI
  34. 10.3109/14767058.2011.587918 · DOI
  35. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02293.x · DOI
  36. 10.1111/1471-0528.12217 · DOI
  37. 10.1111/j.1600-0897.2012.01112.x · DOI
  38. 10.1097/aog.0b013e3181e6dbc0 · DOI
  39. 10.1177/1933719111415548 · DOI
  40. 10.1111/aogs.12344 · DOI
  41. 10.1111/j.0001-6349.2005.00780.x · DOI
  42. 10.1210/jc.2007-0457 · DOI
  43. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03328.x · DOI
  44. 10.1111/j.1479-828x.2006.00671.x · DOI
  45. 10.1021/pr0605419 · DOI
  46. 10.1021/pr0701658 · DOI
  47. 10.1021/pr0700899 · DOI
  48. 10.1021/pr7006413 · DOI
  49. 10.1177/1933719107311189 · DOI
  50. 10.1186/1477-5956-7-17 · DOI
  51. 10.1021/pr900892f · DOI
  52. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1996.tb09832.x · DOI
  53. 10.1016/s0002-9378(99)70612-5 · DOI
  54. 10.1111/j.1479-828x.1995.tb01976.x · DOI
  55. 10.1111/j.1479-828x.1998.tb03096.x · DOI
  56. 1996, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 87, 643
  57. 10.1080/00016340600935730 · DOI
  58. 10.3109/01443615.2011.637649 · DOI
  59. 10.1097/aog.0b013e3181ae6a08 · DOI
  60. 10.1186/1477-5956-8-63 · DOI
  61. 10.1373/clinchem.2006.084798 · DOI
  62. 10.1093/humrep/det019 · DOI
  63. 10.1021/pr0605421 · DOI
  64. 10.1021/pr8010342 · DOI
  65. 10.1089/ars.2010.3122 · DOI
  66. 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.06.011 · DOI
  67. 10.1177/1933719113492204 · DOI
  68. 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.10.912 · DOI
  69. 10.1177/1933719111413299 · DOI
  70. 10.1530/REP-13-0175 · DOI
  71. 10.1371/journal.pone.0076490 · DOI
  72. 10.1530/rep-12-0264 · DOI
  73. 10.1111/1471-0528.12993 · DOI
  74. 10.1111/j.1600-0897.2005.00289.x · DOI
  75. 10.1371/journal.pone.0096901 · DOI

Cited by

See all 77

Metadata

Authors
Georgiou, H. M., Di Quinzio, M. K. W., Permezel, M., & Brennecke, S. P.
Affiliations
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
Venue
Disease Markers
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015
Volume
2015
Pages
1-9
ISSN
  • 0278-0240
  • 1875-8630
Cited by
77
References
1
Language
en
Funders
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
  • Medical Research Foundation for Mothers and Babies (Victoria)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.