Frequency of Uterine Malformations Among Women in a Restricted Gene Pool Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This random, retrospective cross-sectional study was performed to determine the frequency of uterine malformation in restricted gene pool communities. During 2003—2006, 800 women from the community of LaCrete in northern Alberta, Canada (known restricted gene pool for over 500 years), participated. Of the participants, 156 (19.5% of the study population) showed some form of structural uterine malformation. This is 5.5 times higher than what is reported in the general population. All 156 subjects were further investigated with magnetic resonance imaging, 3D sonography, hysterosalpingiography, hysteroscopy, and laparoscopy. These tests revealed that 30 of these women had no previous pregnancies or live births, 40 had one or more previous pregnancies and live births and more than two miscarriages, and 55 had recurrent miscarriages. This study has provided new insights into the increasing number of uterine malformations in the LaCrete population. The significantly higher prevalence of uterine malformations in a restricted gene pool community compared to the reported prevalence in the general population might indicate a direct link between a lack of genetic diversity and the development of uterine malformations in women.
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".