Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diaphragmatic defects and limb deficiencies usually occur as independent anomalies, as a polytopic field defect (in which ipsilateral anomalies might be expected) or as wider pattern of defects, potentially involving disturbance of laterality or the midline (in which bilateral or contralateral defects would occur). Data on cases from previous studies and/or the literature were used to determine whether there is an association between the sides involved in the defects. The 88 adequately described cases identified included 20 with de Lange syndrome, seven with Poland anomaly, four with trisomy 18, 52 with other patterns of multiple malformations and five with diaphragmatic and limb defects alone. Evaluation of the position of the limb (left, right, bilateral) and the diaphragmatic defects (left, right, bilateral) did not show significant association in patterns of sidedness (P = 0.48). In 56% of cases, the limb deficiencies were bilateral. Among the 32 unilateral cases, 19 (59%) were ipsilateral (15 left; 4 right) and 13(41%) were contralateral (P = 0.38). Eleven of the 13 contralateral cases had left sided diaphragmatic defects and right sided limb deficiency; four had de Lange syndrome and nine had other patterns of multiple anomalies. Only cases with Poland anomaly or otherwise isolated defects showed a trend towards ipsilateral defects. Most cases with multiple congenital anomalies, had limbs defects on both the right and left (57%) or both sides of the diaphragm were affected (an additional 10%), indicating a widespread dysmorphogenetic process rather than a more restricted field defect. In other cases, defects were bilateral or, if unilateral, reflected the propensities for diaphragmatic defects to more often involve the left side, and limb defects, the right.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".