Outcome of prenatally diagnosed isolated clubfoot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To analyze the aneuploidy risk and treatment outcome of prenatally diagnosed isolated clubfoot, to determine the false-positive rate (FPR) of ultrasound diagnosis and to calculate the risk of diagnostic revision to complex clubfoot. METHODS: By chart review, 65 patients were retrospectively ascertained to have unilateral or bilateral clubfeet diagnosed prenatally. We calculated the rates of false positives, aneuploidy and diagnostic revision to complex clubfoot, and used an ad hoc scoring system to determine orthopedic outcome. Published rates of aneuploidy were pooled and evaluated. RESULTS: Prenatally diagnosed isolated clubfoot FPR (defined as 1 - positive predictive value) was 10.5% (95% CI, 5.8-18%) (calculated per foot). After a minimum of 1-year postnatal follow-up, 13% (95% CI, 6-26%) of patients had revised diagnoses of complex clubfoot. No patients had aneuploidy identified by cytogenetic analysis or clinical assessment. Of the 34 patients with 2-year postnatal follow-up, 76.5% were treated with serial casting with or without Botox. All children with isolated clubfoot were walking and had an average outcome score of 'very good' to 'excellent'. CONCLUSIONS: When counseling women regarding prenatally diagnosed isolated clubfoot, it is important to tell them that approximately 10% of individuals will have a normal foot or positional foot deformity requiring minimal treatment. Conversely, 10-13% of prenatally diagnosed cases of isolated clubfoot will have complex clubfoot postnatally, based on the finding of additional structural or neurodevelopmental abnormalities. Although this study did not identify an increased risk of fetal aneuploidy associated with isolated clubfoot, a review of the literature indicates a risk of 1.7-3.6% with predominance of sex chromosome aneuploidy.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".