NTNU, NCFM & Hutchon
NTNU: "Guidelines concerning ethics and academic honesty for student research projects, Masters theses, and PhD theses" (Guttorm Sindre, IDI, 2009, slightly revised 2013)
NTNU: The Ethics Portal: Blowing the whistle on dishonesty and research fraud
NTNU: Code of Ethics for Employees of NTNU
Code of ethics for employees at NTNU. Approved by Rector 14 April 2015 (last updated 26.1.2017).
The Copyright Act provides the legal authority for citation in academic publications:
NTNU: Useful links on research ethics and plagiarism
NTNU: Plagiarism control at NTNU
- "These types of research works are to be conducted according to the same ethical standards that would apply for professional / senior researchers in the field, and failure to follow these ethical standards may in the worst case lead to accusations of cheating and/or failure to pass the course in question."
- "The following are examples of unethical conduct:
a) Plagiarism:...
b) Unfair/unacknowledged assistance:...
c) Multiple submission / dishonest reuse of own material:...
d) Fabrication:...
e) Unauthorized collection and disclosure of sensitive or confidential material:...
f) Research with harmful effects:..."
- "More information on research ethics can be found at http://www.ntnu.no/etikkportalen . Also, there are national committees for ethics in research, cf. http://www.etikkom.no/, whose web pages can be consulted, and who can also be contacted if in doubt about the ethics of a research project (but the natural first contact for discussion would be your supervisor). For most projects within ICT, the guidelines from the committee for science and technology research would be most relevant, cf. http://www.etikkom.no/retningslinjer/nent - they also have a checklist for research ethics, http://www.etikkom.no/retningslinjer/sjekkliste . In some cases your research might also be such that information from the other committees (Medical Research, Social Research) could be relevant.
- The IEEE Code of Ethics http://www.ieee.org/portal/pages/iportals/aboutus/ethics/code.html and the ACM Code of Ethics http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics are also useful guidelines for your research efforts, as well as for your future career as an ICT professional."
NTNU: The Ethics Portal: Blowing the whistle on dishonesty and research fraud
- Case
5.1: Blowing the whistle on improper referencing practice
5.2: A victim of whistle-blowing
5.3: Supervisor responsibility and criteria for plagiarism
NTNU: Code of Ethics for Employees of NTNU
Code of ethics for employees at NTNU. Approved by Rector 14 April 2015 (last updated 26.1.2017).
- Specific guidelines for research
b. Ethics and good research practice
NTNU follows international guidelines for good research practice and ethical practice as described by The Norwegian National ResearchEthics Committees in the form of:
general guidelines for research ethics and guidelines specific to subject areas for:
medicine and health
science and technology (pdf)
the social sciences, law and the humanities (pdf)
internet research
NTNU has additional guidelines for research involving humans.
See NTNU’s regulations on the handling of personal data in research and student projects
- Specific guidelines for teaching and supervision
b. Academic integrity in education – cheating and plagiarism
Supervisors and examiners also have an oversight responsibility. Electronic text recognition and other methods can be used to detect possible plagiarism in submitted work. Suspicion of cheating and plagiarism in examinations is to be documented and reported to the Head of Department
The Copyright Act provides the legal authority for citation in academic publications:
- The Norwegian Copyright Act § 22 and the Norwegian Copyright Act § 23.
NTNU: Useful links on research ethics and plagiarism
- NTNU’s code of ethics has a section on research and publishing.
- The Norwegian Act on ethics and integrity in research (in Norwegian: Forskningsetikkloven) aims to ensure that research carried out by public and private institutions is conducted in accordance with recognized ethical standards.
- In the Research Ethics Library you can find more on integrity and professional loyalty to colleagues (academic misconduct and plagiarism, impartiality and handling of references).
- The Ethics Portal addresses dilemmas related to research fraud, among other issues.
NTNU: Plagiarism control at NTNU
- This page explains plagiarism control at NTNU. The information applies to employees in administrative and academic positions.
- Guidelines at NTNU: "Plagiarism can be cheating."
- Undersider
Økland's 2012 NTNU thesis vs. Dr. Hutchon's Publications
The concepts and benefits identified below were introduced in Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998: "'Back to the Future' for Hermanni Boerhaave or 'A rational way to generate ultrasound scan charts for estimating the date of delivery'" published by OBGYN.net 19.07.1998 and in the Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 letter to the editor regarding Baskett & Nagele 2000: "Naegele's rule: a reappraisal," BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Volume 108, Issue 7, July 2001, Page 775. It is interesting to note that the exact same concepts and benefits introduced by Dr. Hutchon were somehow presented in Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis, 14-years later, and claimed to be the original ideas of the NCFM eSnurra Group, of which Økland was (and is) a member. It is even more interesting to note Økland knew these concepts and benefits had been introduced by Dr. Hutchon 14-years earlier because Økland had cited and referenced Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998 as well as his Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 letter to the editor of BJOG regarding Baskett & Nagele 2000: "Naegele's rule: a reappraisal," a total of 11 times in her 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis. Clearly, NTNU's ethos of scholarship, academic integrity and independence did not apply to Økland's NTNU Thesis, just as NTNU's regulations for a signed declaration for each of the 4 joint works with a total of 20 authorship credits included in Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis had been subverted. Which begs the questions: Why were these violations of NTNU's regulations not identified and corrected by Økland's 2012 dr.philos Thesis supervisors and Assessment Committee members? Moreover, who at NTNU had allowed Økland and her 2012 dr.philos Thesis to make it past: 1) the Assessment Committee and 2) the adjudication of her 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis public defense, while in violation of NTNU's explicitly stated regulations for a dr.philos thesis and degree?
Included below are some key concepts and benefits of the Hutchon Method of PDEE introduced and explained in Dr. Hutchon's published works Hutchon 1998 and Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 .These same key concepts and benefits were appropriated into Økland's 2012 dr.philos Thesis. The concepts/benefits identified below are just the highlights. Importantly, this same comparative analysis applies equally to NCFM eSnurra Group, who presented Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, and key concepts and benefits as their own original idea and method etc. in NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005 and Gjessing et al. 2007, thereby initiating 12 years of ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism.
Concept/Benefit: The idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE) is NEW.
Concept/Benefit: A non-selected population
Concept/Benefit: Knowledge of the duration of pregnancy is not required.
Concept/Benefit: A very large number of measurements is possible making the statistical analysis simpler.
Concept/Benefit: Customized dating charts are possible.
Concept/Benefit: Communication of Dr. Hutchon's method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE)
Concept/Benefit: Being able to eliminate the need to use LMPD makes the charts for generating the EDD more accurate and rational.
Final Note:
While Okland was clearly aware of Dr. Hutchon's Boerhaave-inspired method, the Hutchon Method Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE), she only referenced two of his publications. She did not reference Hutchon 1999, Dr. Hutchon's 1999 letter in the BJOG in response to the Gardosi & Geirsson 1998 commentary: "Routine ultrasound is the method of choice for dating pregnancy." In his Hutchon 1999 letter Dr. Hutchon disputed the validity of ultrasound dating over menstrual dating in women who are sure of their LMPD, have a regular cycle and had not been on the oral contraceptive, and provided the discrepancy is not more than a few days (The “day rule” recommended by CESDI) (excerpt below). However, Gardosi & Geirsson's response to Dr. Hutchon made no mention of Dr. Hutchon's proposal to use his method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, to generate customized charts.
The concepts and benefits identified below were introduced in Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998: "'Back to the Future' for Hermanni Boerhaave or 'A rational way to generate ultrasound scan charts for estimating the date of delivery'" published by OBGYN.net 19.07.1998 and in the Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 letter to the editor regarding Baskett & Nagele 2000: "Naegele's rule: a reappraisal," BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Volume 108, Issue 7, July 2001, Page 775. It is interesting to note that the exact same concepts and benefits introduced by Dr. Hutchon were somehow presented in Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis, 14-years later, and claimed to be the original ideas of the NCFM eSnurra Group, of which Økland was (and is) a member. It is even more interesting to note Økland knew these concepts and benefits had been introduced by Dr. Hutchon 14-years earlier because Økland had cited and referenced Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998 as well as his Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 letter to the editor of BJOG regarding Baskett & Nagele 2000: "Naegele's rule: a reappraisal," a total of 11 times in her 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis. Clearly, NTNU's ethos of scholarship, academic integrity and independence did not apply to Økland's NTNU Thesis, just as NTNU's regulations for a signed declaration for each of the 4 joint works with a total of 20 authorship credits included in Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis had been subverted. Which begs the questions: Why were these violations of NTNU's regulations not identified and corrected by Økland's 2012 dr.philos Thesis supervisors and Assessment Committee members? Moreover, who at NTNU had allowed Økland and her 2012 dr.philos Thesis to make it past: 1) the Assessment Committee and 2) the adjudication of her 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis public defense, while in violation of NTNU's explicitly stated regulations for a dr.philos thesis and degree?
Included below are some key concepts and benefits of the Hutchon Method of PDEE introduced and explained in Dr. Hutchon's published works Hutchon 1998 and Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 .These same key concepts and benefits were appropriated into Økland's 2012 dr.philos Thesis. The concepts/benefits identified below are just the highlights. Importantly, this same comparative analysis applies equally to NCFM eSnurra Group, who presented Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, and key concepts and benefits as their own original idea and method etc. in NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005 and Gjessing et al. 2007, thereby initiating 12 years of ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism.
Concept/Benefit: The idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE) is NEW.
- Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998
“This sort of analysis has never been attempted before.” - Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis
"To base a term prediction model on fetal ultrasound measurements from a non-selected population of 36 982 pregnancies (41 343 ultrasound examinations), was a new approach that seemed obvious to statisticians and mathematicians, but not equally obvious to obstetricians." p. 26 - Notes: Contrary to Økland's "but not equally obvious to obstetricians" statement, Dr. Hutchon, while a practicing obstetrician, proposed his Boerhaave-inspired, original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE) in his seminal Hutchon 1998 which was also referenced and explained in two separate letters to the editor of BJOG, Hutchon 1999 & Hutchon & Ahmed 2001. It is important and interesting to note, again, that Dr. Hutchon was a practicing obstetrician at the time. Ergo, the "but not equally obvious to obstetricians" statement in Økland's 2012 NTNU Theisis was factually incorrect; and, Økland had known it to be factually incorrect when she wrote it. Also, Økland had known her claim that Population-based Direct EDD Estimation was an original idea developed by NCFM eSnurra Group was factually incorrect. Again, Økland had read Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998 and his Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 letter to the editor of BJOG regarding Baskett & Nagele 2000: "Naegele's rule: a reappraisal," and cited same a total of 11 times in her 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis. Thesis; whereby, both of Dr. Hutchon's cited publications identified and explained Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE. Moreover, both cited references identified Dr. Hutchon as an obstetrician at "Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Memorial Hospital, Darlington, UK."
Concept/Benefit: A non-selected population
- Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998
“The population we studied had normal healthy pregnancy with spontaneous onset of labour (normally 80% of the population) followed by delivery of a healthy infant. This contrasts with the traditional method with a highly selected group of women with a certain last menstrual period, regular and known cycle length and a willingness to participate in the study. In our study routinely available data were used without selection.” - Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis
"To base a term prediction model on fetal ultrasound measurements from a non-selected population of 36 982 pregnancies (41 343 ultrasound examinations), was a new approach that seemed obvious to statisticians and mathematicians, but not equally obvious to obstetricians." p. 26 - Notes: Dr. Hutchon proposed his Boerhaave-inspired, original idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE) in his seminal Hutchon 1998, which was referenced and explained in two separate letters to the editor of BJOG (Hutchon 1999 & Hutchon & Ahmed 2001) which clearly and unequivocally stated a non-selected population was a benefit of the Hutchon Method. Ergo, the: "was a new approach" statement in Økland's 2012DT was factually incorrect. Moreover, Økland had known at the time her statement was factually incorrect because Økland had read and cited Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998 and his Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 letter to the editor regarding Baskett & Nagele 2000: "Naegele's rule: a reappraisal," a total of 11 times in her 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis. Both of Dr. Hutchon's letters to the editor of BJOG (Hutchon 1999 & Hutchon & Ahmed 2001) identified and explained the Hutchon Method of PDEE as Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method and, identified a non-selected population as a benefit thereof.
Concept/Benefit: Knowledge of the duration of pregnancy is not required.
- Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 reply to Baskett & Nagele 2000
"Naegele's rule: a reappraisal": “We propose a method for generating ultrasound dating charts which eliminates the uncertainty of the last menstrual period and the uncertainty of the length of gestation.” - Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis: "Interestingly, since the model is calibrated to the correct median remaining time, knowledge of the total length of pregnancy is unnecessary for term prediction..." p. 70
- Notes: Dr. Hutchon proposed his Boerhaave-inspired, original idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE) in his published, seminal 1998 paper, which was referenced and explained in two separate letters to the editor of BJOG (Hutchon 1999 & Hutchon & Ahmed 2001) which clearly and unequivocally stated that not requiring knowledge of the LMPD or the total length of pregnancy was a benefit of the Hutchon Method of PDEE. Økland had known at the time Dr. Hutchon had already stated this benefit because she had read and cited Dr. Hutchon's seminal 1998 paper and his Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 letter to the editor regarding Baskett & Nagele 2000: "Naegele's rule: a reappraisal," a total of 11 times in her 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis. Both of Dr. Hutchon's letters to the editor of BJOG (Hutchon 1999 & Hutchon & Ahmed 2001) identified and explained the Hutchon Method of PDEE as Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method and, identified not requiring knowledge of the LMPD or the total length of pregnancy as a benefit thereof.
Concept/Benefit: A very large number of measurements is possible making the statistical analysis simpler.
- Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 reply to Baskett & Nagele 2000: "Naegele's rule: a reappraisal"
“In our study routinely available data were used without selection. Furthermore the large amount of data available results in narrow confidence intervals. Using this method there is automatic compensation for variability which may occur with the length of pregnancy or the size of the infant on the ultrasound scan.” - Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis
"To base a term prediction model on fetal ultrasound measurements from a non-selected population of 36 982 pregnancies (41 343 ultrasound examinations), was a new approach that seemed obvious to statisticians and mathematicians, but not equally obvious to obstetricians." p. 26 - Notes: Dr. Hutchon proposed his Boerhaave-inspired, original idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE) in his published, seminal 1998 paper, which was referenced and explained in two separate letters to the editor of BJOG (Hutchon 1999 & Hutchon & Ahmed 2001) which clearly and unequivocally stated that the large number of measurements available for epidemiological and statistical analysis compared to the LMPD method was a benefit of the Hutchon Method of PDEE. Økland had known at the time Dr. Hutchon had already stated this benefit because she had read and cited Dr. Hutchon's seminal 1998 paper and his Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 letter to the editor regarding Baskett & Nagele 2000: "Naegele's rule: a reappraisal," a total of 11 times in her 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis. Both of Dr. Hutchon's letters to the editor of BJOG (Hutchon 1999 & Hutchon & Ahmed 2001) identified and explained the Hutchon Method of PDEE as Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method and, the large number of measurements available for epidemiological and statistical analysis compared to the LMPD method as a benefit thereof.
Concept/Benefit: Customized dating charts are possible.
- Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 reply to Baskett & Nagele 2000
"Naegele's rule: a reappraisal": “In our study routinely available data were used without selection. Furthermore the large amount of data available results in narrow confidence intervals. Using this method there is automatic compensation for variability which may occur with the length of pregnancy or the size of the infant on the ultrasound scan.” - Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis
"This makes it possible to calculate the median remaining time of pregnancy and the EDD. Conversely, the traditional, sample-based models use the fetal measurements to estimate the LMP — the EDD is then found by adding a specified number of days to the estimated LMP date. This contrast has been rather complicated to communicate, even though it is both evident and logical (Hutchon and Ahmed 2001, Salomon et al. 2010, Gjessing et al. 2007)." p. 26
"The population-based approach to prediction of EDD (Gjessing et al. 2007), and to establishment of other categories of fetal biometry charts (Sahota et al. 2008, Kagan et al. 2009, Verburg et al. 2008b, Pexsters et al. 2010) seems to be gradually replacing the smaller, conventional studies from earlier decades. Thus, taking advantage of huge databases, into which data of adequate quality from unselected and representative populations have been continuously collected, is an indisputable opportunity." p. 42
[Note: Interestingly, the point made in the last sentence was made by one of the UOG referees (Editors' code: 210) who reviewed Dr. Hutchon's manuscript: UOG 99/155, 13 years earlier.]
"This makes the population-model robust against selection bias (Gjessing et al. 2007, Salomon et al. 2010, Hutchon and Ahmed 2001)." p. 70 - Notes: These 3 references (above) included in Økland's 2012DT support the view that NCFM eSnurra Group's “population-model” eliminates selection bias. The first 2 citations are references to papers which describe generic population methods and benefits. However, the third reference describes the Boerhaave-inspired Hutchon Method of PDEE which was appropriated and plagiarized by NCFM eSnurra Group from Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998 and website and claimed as NCFM eSnurra Group's own original original idea and method in their Eik-Nes et al. 2005 and Gjessing et al. 2007 publications. Of course, Dr. Hutchon proposed the Boerhaave-inspired Hutchon Method of PDEE in his seminal Hutchon 1998, which was referenced and explained in two separate letters to the editor of BJOG (Hutchon 1999 & Hutchon & Ahmed 2001) which clearly and unequivocally stated that the large number of measurements available for epidemiological and statistical analysis while eliminating selection bias compared to traditional LMPD methods, was a benefit of the Hutchon Method. Økland had known at the time Dr. Hutchon had already stated this benefit because she had read and cited Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998 paper and his Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 letter to the editor regarding Baskett & Nagele 2000: "Naegele's rule: a reappraisal" a combined total of 11 times in her 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis. Both of Dr. Hutchon's letters to the editor of BJOG (Hutchon 1999 & Hutchon & Ahmed 2001) identified and explained the Hutchon Method of PDEE as Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method and, the large number of measurements available for epidemiological and statistical analysis, while eliminating selection bias compared to the traditional LMP method, was a benefit thereof. Hutchon 1998 & Hutchon & Ahmed 2001
Concept/Benefit: Communication of Dr. Hutchon's method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE)
- Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis
"This contrast has been rather complicated to communicate, even though it is both evident and logical (Hutchon and Ahmed 2001, Salomon et al. 2010, Gjessing et al. 2007)." Second reference above, p. 26 - Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 reply to Baskett & Nagele 2000: "Naegele's rule: a reappraisal"
Hutchon & Ahmed 2001, a 20-sentence letter to the editor of BJOG speaks for itself with respect to its level of complexity. - Note: It appears Økland is implying that despite the communication by the Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 letter to the editor regarding Baskett & Nagele 2000: "Naegele's rule: a reappraisal" which referenced Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998 and included the URL link, Dr. Hutchon's Method of PDEE was still not properly understood, even after 7 subsequent publications of plagiarism describing the Hutchon Method of PDEE: NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005, Gjessing et al. 2007, Salomon et al. 2010 and 4 published poster abstracts in the "Special Issue: 17th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology October 2007. " Consequently, Økland's claim strains credulity.
Concept/Benefit: Being able to eliminate the need to use LMPD makes the charts for generating the EDD more accurate and rational.
- Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis
"Therefore, it is rightly claimed that these charts will never be more accurate than were the LMPs of the women in the study group, from whom the charts were computed (Campbell et al. 1985, Bergsjo et al. 1990, Hall 1990, Geirsson 1991, Hutchon 1998)." p. 40 - Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 reply to "Naegele's rule: a reappraisal": The alternative title of Dr. Hutchon's seminal 1998 paper: "A rational way to generate ultrasound scan charts for estimating the date of delivery" makes this point abundantly clear, and it was disingenuous for Økland to use this as a reference simply to support the inaccuracy of relying on LMPD alone.
- Notes: This reference to Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998 provides a full explanation of why being able to eliminate the need to use LMPD makes the charts for estimating EDD more accurate and rational. One cannot help but wonder if Økland was trying to give the impression that she did not actually read the papers she had cited and referenced. Following is the reference to Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998 included in Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis:
- "Hutchon DJ. "Back to future" for Hermaani Boerhaave, or, "A rational way to generate ultrasound scan charts for estimating the date of delivery". OBGYN.net: 1998; http://www.obgyn.net/us/cotm/9807/cotm_9807.htm [Accessed 15 March 2011]"
[Note: the original URL has since been replaced with: http://www.obgyn.net/obgyn-ultrasound/back-future-hermanni-boerhaave-or-rational-way-generate-ultrasound-scan-charts-estimating-date]
- "Hutchon DJ. "Back to future" for Hermaani Boerhaave, or, "A rational way to generate ultrasound scan charts for estimating the date of delivery". OBGYN.net: 1998; http://www.obgyn.net/us/cotm/9807/cotm_9807.htm [Accessed 15 March 2011]"
Final Note:
While Okland was clearly aware of Dr. Hutchon's Boerhaave-inspired method, the Hutchon Method Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE), she only referenced two of his publications. She did not reference Hutchon 1999, Dr. Hutchon's 1999 letter in the BJOG in response to the Gardosi & Geirsson 1998 commentary: "Routine ultrasound is the method of choice for dating pregnancy." In his Hutchon 1999 letter Dr. Hutchon disputed the validity of ultrasound dating over menstrual dating in women who are sure of their LMPD, have a regular cycle and had not been on the oral contraceptive, and provided the discrepancy is not more than a few days (The “day rule” recommended by CESDI) (excerpt below). However, Gardosi & Geirsson's response to Dr. Hutchon made no mention of Dr. Hutchon's proposal to use his method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, to generate customized charts.
- "What exactly are we doing when we date a pregnancy by ultrasound? Clearly if no reliable menstrual data are available, there is no alternative to ultrasound dating. However, when apparently reliable menstrual data are available, it is not expected that the scan size should always fall precisely on the mean for that gestation. Nor does the way the ultrasound charts are generated support this expectation. It would be nonsense to suggest that all fetuses with a BPD of, say 35 mm, are all at precisely the same gestational age. If ultrasound dating is more accurate, then we are essentially proposing that the interval to delivery from the ultrasound scan of some specific value (e.g. 35mm) is less variable than the last menstrual period to delivery interval. Fetal size is being used as the predictor of the delivery interval. If using ultrasound size is the most accurate way to predict the date of delivery, then the ultrasound charts should be generated using these same principles." (Source: CORRESPONDENCE Re: "Routine ultrasound is the method of choice for dating pregnancy" David J. R. Hutchon, Br J Obstet Gynuecol 1999, 106, 610-616, p 616)
Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis Citations & References of Dr. Hutchon's Publications
Citations: Main Thesis:
Citations: Main Thesis:
- [Thesis Page No., Citation Name(s) & date(s)]
- 14 (Boerhaave 1744, Hutchon 1998, Baskett and Nagele 2000)
- 26 (Hutchon and Ahmed 2001, Salomon et al. 2010, Gjessing et al. 2007)
- 40 (Campbell et al. 1985, Bergsjø et al. 1990, Hall 1990, Geirsson 1991, Hutchon 1998)
- 70 (Gjessing et al. 2007, Salomon et al. 2010, Hutchon and Ahmed 2001)
- 74 (Hutchon and Ahmed 2001, Gjessing et al. 2007)
- Thesis Page No., Reference by name(s)]
- 95 Hutchon DJ. "Back to future" for Hermaani Boerhaave, or, "A rational way to generate ultrasound scan charts for estimating the date of delivery". OBGYN.net: 1998; http://www.obgyn.net/us/cotm/9807/cotm_9807.htm [Accessed 15 March 2011]
- 95 Hutchon DJ and Ahmed F. Naegele's rule: a reappraisal. Bjog 2001; 108: 775.
- [Thesis Page No., Citation Text, Citation-Reference No.)
- 106 "In addition, the models estimate a date of the last menstrual period (LMP) from the fetal ultrasound measurements; the subsequent prediction of day of delivery is done simply by adding approximately 280 days to the estimated, and therefore ‘artificial’, LMP date 10." [Paper I, p. 729]
- 116 "The models thus calculate an ‘artificial’ LMP 19, and 280–282 days has to be added to obtain the estimated date of delivery (EDD)." [Paper II, p. 208]
- 116 "Consequently, the selected women are not representative of the ‘typical’ expectant mother at a routine examination, and the prediction model is still influenced by the LMP 19." [Paper II, p. 208]
- 119 "This makes the population-model robust against selection bias 13,19,23." [Paper II, p. 211]
- 126 "Traditional models primarily estimate a last menstrual period (LMP) from secondtrimester fetal measurements, thus, the estimated date of delivery (EDD) is actually an indirect and secondary issue 3, 5, 6." [Paper III]
- 130 "The traditional sample-based models were devised to estimate a hypothetical LMP, i.e., GA, from second-trimester fetal measurements, and derive the EDDprediction from this 3, 5, 6." [Paper III]
- [Thesis Page No., Citation Reference No., Reference]
- 110 10. Hutchon DJ, Ahmed F. Naegele’s rule: a reappraisal. BJOG 2001; 108: 775 [Paper I]
- 121 19. Hutchon DJ, Ahmed F. Naegele’s rule: a reappraisal. BJOG 2001; 108: 775. [Paper II]
- 131 6. Hutchon DJ, Ahmed F. Naegele's rule: a reappraisal. Bjog 2001; 108: 775. [Paper III]
The 3 NCFM eSnurra Group papers (below) cite and reference Hutchon & Ahmed 2001. Additionally, these 3 papers were included as "joint works" in Økland's 2012DT as Papers I, II & III which are identified below.
NTNU 2012 dr.philos. Doctoral Thesis, Inger Økland, MD: Biases in second-trimester ultrasound dating related to prediction models and fetal measurements Defense:13 January 2012. Principal Supervisor: Sturla H. Eik-Nes, MD, PhD , Co-supervisors: Håkon K. Gjessing, PhD and Per Grøttum, MD, PhD, the three original members of the NCFM eSnurra Group and the three eSnurra "copyright owners" (© 2007 EikNes, Grøttum og Gjessing). Advisory Committee & Thesis Adjudication: 1) Jens Grøgaard, MD, PhD, Senior Adviser, Directorate of Health, 2) Zarko Alfirevic, MD, Professor of Fetal and Maternal Medicine Women's and Children's Health, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool and 3) Liv Bente Romundstad, MD, PhD, Gynecologist with Spiren Fertilitetsklinikkand and post-doc at the Department of Community Medicine, NTNU.
All remained silent about what they knew.
Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis, cited and referenced Dr. Hutchon 5 separate times in the main body (i.e., non-papers section) of her 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis, with all 5 citations referencing LMP usage or selection bias, not Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation. Additionally, since the 3 aforementioned NCFM eSnurra Group papers identified above were included in Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis as "joint works" of 14 authorship credits among 6 NCFM eSnurra Group authors, Dr. Hutchon was cited 11 separate times in Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis, but not once for his original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, even though Økland and her NCFM eSnurra Group coauthors were well aware of Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998 and Hutchon & Ahmed 2001, yet they all remained silent about what they knew.
Also, it is important to understand all of the above was done with the consent and approval of Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis supervisors, who are identified on page 3 of her thesis as: Principal Supervisor: Sturla H. Eik-Nes, MD, PhD , Co-supervisors: Håkon K. Gjessing, PhD & Per Grøttum, MD, PhD, who are the 3:
Summary
Økland's plagiarism-based, academically-compromised, 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis was the one and only publicly available document, if not the only document, used and promoted by Directorate of Health to justify their medically & ethically flawed, intentionally reckless, willfully negligent 2014 Recommendation with their exclusive implementation of NCFM eSnurra Group's method (i.e., the appropriated, plagiarized, misused Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation) with a government-mandated protocol of evidence-obviated medicine which is proven to cause increased medical risks and grievous harms with respect to obstetric medicine, fetal medicine and obstetric clinical care.
Moreover, and in what just could be a coup de grâce to the public trust, NCFM eSnurra Group member Inger Økland is currently in her second year of employment with Directorate of Health, alongside Jens Grøgaard, Senior Adviser, Directorate of Heath, to further the implementation of Directorate of Health's medically & ethically flawed 2014 Recommendation. Økland and Grøgaard likely work well together, as they are like-minded when it comes to breaching ethical boundaries and the public trust to further an ambition-driven agenda of NCFM eSnurra Group or an incompetence-driven agenda of Directorate of Health. Consider the following:
- Paper I
Biases of traditional term prediction models: results from different sample-based models evaluated on 41 343 ultrasound examinations
Økland I, Gjessing HK, Grøttum P, Eik-Nes SH.
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Dec;36(6):728-34. doi: 10.1002/uog.7707. Epub 2010 Jun 8.
Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 Citation: "In addition, the models estimate a date of the last menstrual period (LMP) from the fetal ultrasound measurements; the subsequent prediction of day of delivery is done simply by adding approximately 280 days to the estimated, and therefore ‘artificial’, LMP date 10." p. 729
Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 Reference: "10. Hutchon DJ, Ahmed F. Naegele’s rule: a reappraisal. BJOG 2001; 108: 775." - Paper II
A new population-based term prediction model vs. two traditional sample-based models: validation on 9046 ultrasound examinations
Okland I, Gjessing HK, Grøttum P, Eggebø TM, Eik-Nes SH.
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Feb;37(2):207-13. doi: 10.1002/uog.7728. Epub 2010 Jun 17.
Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 Citation 1: "The models thus calculate an ‘artificial’ LMP 19, and 280–282 days has to be added to obtain the estimated date of delivery (EDD)." p. 208
Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 Citation 2: "Consequently, the selected women are not representative of the ‘typical’ expectant mother at a routine examination, and the prediction model is still influenced by the LMP 19" p. 208
Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 Citation 3: "This makes the population-model robust against selection bias 13,19,23." p. 211
Hutchon & Ahmed Reference: "19. Hutchon DJ, Ahmed F. Naegele’s rule: a reappraisal. BJOG 2001; 108: 775." - Paper III
Advantages of the population-based approach to pregnancy dating: results from 23,020 ultrasound examinations
Økland I, Nakling J, Gjessing HK, Grøttum P, Eik-Nes SH.
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 May;39(5):563-8. doi: 10.1002/uog.10081.
Note: Paper III was published after the public defense of Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis on 13.01.2012; consequently, and to be precises, the published version is not included in her 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis. - Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 Citation 1: "Traditional models primarily estimate a last menstrual period (LMP) from second-trimester fetal measurements, thus, the estimated date of delivery (EDD) is actually an indirect and secondary issue 3, 5, 6." p. 563
Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 Citation 2: "The traditional sample-based models were devised to estimate a hypothetical LMP, i.e., GA, from second-trimester fetal measurements, and derive the EDD-prediction from this 3, 5, 6." p. 567 - Hutchon & Ahmed 2001 Reference: 6. "Hutchon DJ, Ahmed F. Naegele's rule: a reappraisal. Bjog 2001; 108: 775."
NTNU 2012 dr.philos. Doctoral Thesis, Inger Økland, MD: Biases in second-trimester ultrasound dating related to prediction models and fetal measurements Defense:13 January 2012. Principal Supervisor: Sturla H. Eik-Nes, MD, PhD , Co-supervisors: Håkon K. Gjessing, PhD and Per Grøttum, MD, PhD, the three original members of the NCFM eSnurra Group and the three eSnurra "copyright owners" (© 2007 EikNes, Grøttum og Gjessing). Advisory Committee & Thesis Adjudication: 1) Jens Grøgaard, MD, PhD, Senior Adviser, Directorate of Health, 2) Zarko Alfirevic, MD, Professor of Fetal and Maternal Medicine Women's and Children's Health, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool and 3) Liv Bente Romundstad, MD, PhD, Gynecologist with Spiren Fertilitetsklinikkand and post-doc at the Department of Community Medicine, NTNU.
- Citation p-14: "In a collection of his academic lectures in five volumes, edited and annotated by Albert Haller and published in 1744 (Figure 4) (Boerhaave 1744, Hutchon 1998, Baskett and Nagele 2000), there is a lecture On Conception where he says: ‘Women for the most part are impregnated after the end of their period. Numerous experiments undertaken in France confirm this; for of 100 births altogether, 99 came about in the 9th month after the last menstruation by counting 1 week after the last period and by reckoning the 9 months of gestation from that time. For, at that time the uterus is purged and empty, and the plethora are drained out’ (Baskett and Nagele 2000)." (p. 14-15)
Note: Hutchon 1999 stated: "If Boerhaave had had an ultrasound scanner his paper might have read something like "It is proved by numerous observations that 99 out of 100 births occur 22 weeks ( at 18 weeks gestation) after the biparietal diameter of the fetus is 40mm." - Citation p-26: "This makes it possible to calculate the median remaining time of pregnancy and the EDD. Conversely, the traditional, sample-based models use the fetal measurements to estimate the LMP — the EDD is then found by adding a specified number of days to the estimated LMP date. This contrast has been rather complicated to communicate, even though it is both evident and logical (Hutchon and Ahmed 2001, Salomon et al. 2010, Gjessing et al. 2007)." (p. 26)
- Citation p-40: "Therefore, it is rightly claimed that these charts will never be more accurate than were the LMPs of the women in the study group, from whom the charts were computed (Campbell et al. 1985, Bergsjø et al. 1990, Hall 1990, Geirsson 1991, Hutchon 1998)." (p. 40)
- Citation p-70: "This makes the population-model robust against selection bias (Gjessing et al. 2007, Salomon et al. 2010, Hutchon and Ahmed 2001)." (p. 70) [Note: Salomon et al. 2010 also appropriated and plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE. See: Plagiarism > HUTCHON TIMELINE entries: (26.07.2007, 17.09.2007, 21.09 2007, 00.11.2007, 29.02.2008, 13.02.2009, 11.12.2009, 00.01.2012, all with respect to Yves Ville, coauthor of Salomon et al. 2010]
- Citation p-70: "The traditional sample-based models were devised to estimate an LMP, to obtain the GA, from second-trimester fetal measurements and derive the EDD-prediction from this (Hutchon & Ahmed 2001, Gjessing et al. 2007)" (p. 74).
- REFERENCES
- Hutchon Reference 1998 in Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis
"Hutchon DJ. "Back to future" for Hermaani Boerhaave, or, "A rational way to generate ultrasound scan charts for estimating the date of delivery". OBGYN.net: 1998; http://www.obgyn.net/us/cotm/9807/cotm_9807.htm [Accessed 15 March 2011]" (p. 95) - Hutchon & Ahmed Reference 2001
"Hutchon DJ and Ahmed F. Naegele's rule: a reappraisal. Bjog 2001; 108: 775." (p. 95)
- Hutchon Reference 1998 in Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis
All remained silent about what they knew.
Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis, cited and referenced Dr. Hutchon 5 separate times in the main body (i.e., non-papers section) of her 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis, with all 5 citations referencing LMP usage or selection bias, not Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation. Additionally, since the 3 aforementioned NCFM eSnurra Group papers identified above were included in Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis as "joint works" of 14 authorship credits among 6 NCFM eSnurra Group authors, Dr. Hutchon was cited 11 separate times in Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis, but not once for his original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, even though Økland and her NCFM eSnurra Group coauthors were well aware of Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998 and Hutchon & Ahmed 2001, yet they all remained silent about what they knew.
Also, it is important to understand all of the above was done with the consent and approval of Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis supervisors, who are identified on page 3 of her thesis as: Principal Supervisor: Sturla H. Eik-Nes, MD, PhD , Co-supervisors: Håkon K. Gjessing, PhD & Per Grøttum, MD, PhD, who are the 3:
- original members of NCFM eSnurra Group
- coauthors of NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005 (S. H. Eik-Nes, H. G. Blaas, P. Grøttum, H. Gjessing) and Gjessing et al. 2007 (H. K. Gjessing, P. Grøttum, S. H. Eik-Nes) publications which appropriated and plagiarized the Hutchon Method of PDEE and, subsequently, at least 15 known publications of ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism
- coauthors of all 4 NCFM eSnurra Group papers included within Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis
- eSnurra claimed "copyright owners" of NCFM eSnurra (© 2007 EikNes, Grøttum og Gjessing) as stated on the NCFM eSnurra website, bottom of page
Summary
Økland's plagiarism-based, academically-compromised, 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis was the one and only publicly available document, if not the only document, used and promoted by Directorate of Health to justify their medically & ethically flawed, intentionally reckless, willfully negligent 2014 Recommendation with their exclusive implementation of NCFM eSnurra Group's method (i.e., the appropriated, plagiarized, misused Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation) with a government-mandated protocol of evidence-obviated medicine which is proven to cause increased medical risks and grievous harms with respect to obstetric medicine, fetal medicine and obstetric clinical care.
Moreover, and in what just could be a coup de grâce to the public trust, NCFM eSnurra Group member Inger Økland is currently in her second year of employment with Directorate of Health, alongside Jens Grøgaard, Senior Adviser, Directorate of Heath, to further the implementation of Directorate of Health's medically & ethically flawed 2014 Recommendation. Økland and Grøgaard likely work well together, as they are like-minded when it comes to breaching ethical boundaries and the public trust to further an ambition-driven agenda of NCFM eSnurra Group or an incompetence-driven agenda of Directorate of Health. Consider the following:
- Jens Grøgaard is known to be ethically challenged and was criticized for breaching the Code of Ethics for Doctors by the Medical Ethics Council of the Norwegian Medical Association ("Criticism to the doctor for age testing" ("Kritikk til lege for alderstesting")
- Jens Grøgaard was a member of Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis Assessment Committee
- Jens Grøgaard adjudicated the public defense of Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis on 13.01.2012
- Jens Grøgaard identified Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis to NOKC as the answer NOKC should deliver in NOKC's official reply to the formal request made by Jens Grøgaard on behalf of Ministry of Health & Care Services and Directorate of Health for NOKC's decision-support assistance (i.e., "the fix").
- Jens Grøgaard coauthored and signed Directorate of Health's 10.12.2014 letter, with Torunn Janbu, then Acting Division Director, Directorate of Health, sent to Helse Midt-Norge RHF, Helse Nord RHF, Helse Sør-Øst RHF and Helse Vest RHF to enact Directorate of Health's medically & ethically flawed, intentionally reckless, willfully negligent 2014 Recommendation with their exclusive implementation of NCFM eSnurra Group's method (i.e., the appropriated, plagiarized, misused Hutchon Method of PDEE) with a government-mandated protocol of evidence-obviated medicine proven to cause increased medical risks and grievous harms with respect to obstetric medicine, fetal medicine and obstetric clinical care. Moreover, within Directorate of Health's 10.12.2014 letter NCFM eSnurra Group member Inger Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis was the one and only document discussed, cited and footnoted; the one and only document presented as independent, academic justification for Directorate of Health's selection of NCFM eSnurra Group's method (i.e., the appropriated, plagiarized, misused Hutchon Method of PDEE).