MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061096265 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.c.30302

How do we know if an exposure is actually teratogenic in humans?

2011· article· en· W2061096265 on OpenAlexaff
Jan M. Friedman

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part C Seminars in Medical Genetics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeratologyConsistency (knowledge bases)PregnancyMedicineComputer scienceBiologyGestationArtificial intelligenceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The only way we can be certain that an exposure is teratogenic in humans is to recognize that it causes birth defects in babies. The goal of clinical teratology research is, therefore, to identify when a teratogenic exposure has harmed babies as quickly and effectively as possible. We use several kinds of human data to characterize teratogenic effects-case reports, case series, pregnancy registries, cohort studies, case-control studies, and record linkage studies. Each approach can be helpful, but each has limitations as well. Drawing a causal inference requires analysis of all available data, their consistency, and their biological plausibility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part C Seminars in Medical GeneticsSame topicPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsFrench-language works237,207