Association between congenital foot anomalies and gestational age at amniocentesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to confirm the reported association between early amniocentesis and congenital foot anomalies as well as to report, for the first time, on the outcome of amniocenteses performed during the 13th and 14th weeks of gestation. METHODS: We conducted a triple cohort retrospective study of 4457 amniocenteses. Cohort definitions: early amniocentesis (EA), 11 weeks and 0/7 days to 12 weeks to 6/7 days; early midtrimester amniocentesis (EMA), 13 weeks and 0/7 days to 14 weeks and 6/7 days; and midtrimester amniocentesis (MA), 15 weeks and 0/7 days to 19 weeks and 6/7 days. Outcome measures were obtained by searching the Alberta Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System (ACASS) database for children born with foot anomalies represented by International Classification of Diseases version 9 (ICD-9) codes 754.5, 754.6 and 754.7. RESULTS: Incidences of congenital foot anomalies were: EA 11/980 (1.1%), EMA 11/2515 (0.4%), and MA 1/962 (0.1%). There is a significant difference between the EA and EMA cohorts (p=0.019) and between the EA and MA cohorts (p=0.003); however, these data suggest there is no difference between EMA and MA cohorts (p=0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Our incidence of congenital foot anomalies of 1.1% for women who underwent EA is similar to previously reported data, which further validates this association; however, our data also suggest that the foot anomaly risk may be limited to amniocenteses performed before the 13th week of gestation.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".