MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062562593 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.33543

Femoral–facial syndrome: Prenatal diagnosis and clinical features. Report of three cases

2010· article· en· W2062562593 on OpenAlexaff
Małgorzata J.M. Nowaczyk, Marlene J. Huggins, Adam Fleming, Patrick Mohide

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestationPrenatal diagnosisFetusPregnancyObstetricsSurgeryPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of our article is to illustrate the earliest prenatal sonographic diagnosis of femoral-facial syndrome (FFS) and to illustrate the spectrum of clinical manifestations of this condition. We present serial sonographic evaluation with 3D evaluation in two fetuses diagnosed prenatally with FFS and the postnatal findings in three patients (one fetus following pregnancy interruption and two newborns one of whom was diagnosed prenatally) with FFS. The two patients with prenatally diagnosed FFS were found to have femoral shortening and characteristic facial features, one 12 weeks of gestation, and one at 15 weeks of gestation. The sonographic findings in the two prenatally diagnosed patients were confirmed after delivery. We also present a third patient who was diagnosed at delivery in whom the diagnosis was missed at a routine prenatal sonogram at 19 weeks of gestation. The patients reported herein expand the clinical spectrum of FFS. The utility of sonographic evaluation in diagnosis of the facial appearance and of the bony abnormalities in this condition is emphasized.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations25
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207