Congenital limb deficiencies in Alberta—a review of 33 years (1980–2012) from the Alberta Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System (ACASS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The birth prevalence of limb deficiencies in Alberta has been fluctuating. The objectives were to examine patterns and temporal trends of congenital limb deficiencies in Alberta and compare rates with those of other jurisdictions. The Alberta Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System data on live births, stillbirths, and terminations of pregnancy (<20 weeks gestation) occurring between 1980 through 2012 with the ICD-10 Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Adaptations codes Q71-Q73 (limb reduction defects), Q79.80 (congenital constriction bands), and Q87.24 (sirenomelia syndrome) were reviewed. Cases were classified as having amelia, transverse, longitudinal (preaxial, postaxial, central, or mixed), intercalary, split hand/split foot, complex, or other type of limb deficiency. Phenotypes were classified as associated, which included cases with a known etiology and cases with at least one other type of anomaly, or isolated. From 1980 through 2012, 795 cases were ascertained from 1,411,652 live births and stillbirths, giving a prevalence of 5.6/10,000 total births. Mixed longitudinal deficiencies were the most common (22.4%). The upper limbs (63.9%) were affected more often than the lower limbs (25.3%). Isolated limb deficiencies occurred in 43.6% of cases, 28.4% had Mendelian or other known conditions, 21.9% had multiple congenital anomalies, 5.4% had chromosome abnormalities and 0.6% were due to teratogens. The associated group, showed a significant increasing trend (P = 0.023). While the overall limb deficiency rates show very little differences across diverse populations and differing time periods, comparisons of subgroups should be made with caution, because variations in terminology and classification contribute to reported differences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".