Prevalence of fetal alcohol syndrome in a population‐based sample of children living in remote <scp>A</scp>ustralia: The <scp>L</scp>ililwan Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Aboriginal leaders concerned about high rates of alcohol use in pregnancy invited researchers to determine the prevalence of fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) and partial fetal alcohol syndrome (pFAS) in their communities. METHODS: Population-based prevalence study using active case ascertainment in children born in 2002/2003 and living in the Fitzroy Valley, in Western Australia (April 2010-November 2011) (n = 134). Socio-demographic and antenatal data, including alcohol use in pregnancy, were collected by interview with 127/134 (95%) consenting parents/care givers. Maternal/child medical records were reviewed. Interdisciplinary assessments were conducted for 108/134 (81%) children. FAS/pFAS prevalence was determined using modified Canadian diagnostic guidelines. RESULTS: In 127 pregnancies, alcohol was used in 55%. FAS or pFAS was diagnosed in 13/108 children, a prevalence of 120 per 1000 (95% confidence interval 70-196). Prenatal alcohol exposure was confirmed for all children with FAS/pFAS, 80% in the first trimester and 50% throughout pregnancy. Ten of 13 mothers had Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test scores and all drank at a high-risk level. Of children with FAS/pFAS, 69% had microcephaly, 85% had weight deficiency and all had facial dysmorphology and central nervous system abnormality/impairment in three to eight domains. CONCLUSIONS: The population prevalence of FAS/pFAS in remote Aboriginal communities of the Fitzroy Valley is the highest reported in Australia and similar to that reported in high-risk populations internationally. Results are likely to be generalisable to other age groups in the Fitzroy Valley and other remote Australian communities with high-risk alcohol use during pregnancy. Prevention of FAS/pFAS is an urgent public health challenge.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".