Birth prevalence and survival of exomphalos in england and wales: 2005 to 2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exomphalos occurs in 2.2 per 10,000 births with 76% of these babies surviving to discharge. The aim of this study was to determine the birth prevalence and survival of babies with this anomaly in England and Wales. METHODS: Six BINOCAR regional congenital anomaly registers in England and Wales (covering 36% of births) between 2005 and 2011 provided cases for this study. Cases included live births, stillbirths (24+ weeks' gestation), late miscarriages (20-23 weeks' gestation), and terminations of pregnancy with fetal anomaly. RESULTS: The overall birth prevalence was 3.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.6-4.0) per 10,000 births; 1.4 (1.2-1.6) for isolated cases, 1.2 (1.1-1.4) for cases with multiple anomalies, and 1.2 (1.1-1.4) for cases with chromosomal anomalies. The live birth prevalence was 0.8 (0.7-0.9), 0.5 (0.4-0.6), and 0.1 (0.0-0.1) per 10,000 live births, respectively. Edwards syndrome, congenital heart defects, and nervous system anomalies were the most common anomalies associated with exomphalos. A prenatal diagnosis was made in 83% of isolated, 95% of multiple, and 99% of chromosomal cases. Fifty-five percent of isolated and multiple cases were live born, whereas 85% of cases with chromosomal anomalies resulted in a termination of pregnancy with fetal anomaly. The 1-year survival of live born babies with an isolated exomphalos was 92% compared with 81% in cases with multiple anomalies and 27% in cases with chromosomal anomalies (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We report a higher birth prevalence than has previously been reported. The proportion of infants surviving with exomphalos remained unchanged over the time period.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".