MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064293262 · doi:10.1515/jpm.2010.028

Incidence of perinatal complications in children with premature craniosynostosis

2010· article· en· W2064293262 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Benedikt Weber, Anton H. Schwabegger, Wilhelm Oberaigner, Astrid Rumer-Moser, H. Steiner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Perinatal Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsMedicineCraniosynostosisIncidence (geometry)PediatricsApgar scorePopulationObstetricsGestational agePregnancySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To study the incidence of perinatal complications in children diagnosed with premature craniosynostosis and their mothers. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to all women (n=220) who delivered a child diagnosed either pre- or postnatally with craniosynostosis and treated at the University Hospital of Innsbruck, Austria between January 1, 1990 and October 10, 2007. The incidence of various complications in the group of children with craniosynostosis was compared with data from the Birth Registry of Tyrol, which served as a comparison population in this study (n=57,317). RESULTS: A total of 46.4% of the questionnaires were returned (n=102). Children diagnosed with craniosynostosis showed a significantly higher rate of fetal malpresentations at birth [P<0.001; OR 2.38 (CI 1.53-3.70)] compared to the general population. In particular, the rate of abnormal cephalic [P<0.001; OR 3.42 (CI 2.03-5.76)] and breech presentations [P=0.01; OR 2.39 (CI 1.27-4.49)] was significantly increased. In 10% of all neonates the Apgar score (P=0.001) as well as the pH-value (P<0.001) was found to be at least one category lower than in the comparison population. CONCLUSIONS: Children diagnosed with craniosynostosis have a significantly higher rate of numerous birth complications compared to the overall births documented at the Birth Registry of Tyrol.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

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

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Perinatal MedicineSame topicCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207