Infant leukemia and congenital abnormalities: A Children's Oncology Group study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Leukemia in infants is rare and has not been well studied apart from leukemia in older children. Differences in survival and the molecular characteristics of leukemia in infants versus older children suggest a distinct etiology, likely involving prenatal factors. PROCEDURE: We examined the association between eight categories of maternally reported congenital abnormalities (CAs) (cleft lip or palate, spina bifida or other spinal defect, large or multiple birthmarks, other chromosomal abnormalities, small head or microcephaly, rib abnormalities, urogenital abnormalities, and other) and infant leukemia in a case-control study. The study included 443 cases diagnosed at <1 year of age at a Children's Oncology Group Institution in the United States or Canada from 1996 to 2006 and 324 controls. Controls were recruited from the cases' geographic area either by random digit dialing (1999-2002) or through birth certificates (2003-2008) and were frequency-matched to cases on birth year. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by unconditional logistic regression after adjustment for birth year and a measure of follow-up time to account for differences in the CA observation period. RESULTS: No statistically significant associations were observed between infant leukemia and any CA (OR = 1.2; 95% CI: 0.8-1.9), birthmarks (OR = 1.4; 95% CI: 0.7-2.5), urogenital abnormalities (OR = 0.7; 95% CI: 0.2-2.0), or other CA (OR = 1.4; 95% CI: 0.7-2.8). Results were similar for acute lymphoblastic and myeloid leukemia cases. Fewer than five subjects were in the remaining CA categories precluding analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we did not find evidence to support an association between CAs and infant leukemia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".