Maternal Hyperthermia and the Risk for Neural Tube Defects in Offspring
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In animals, excessive core body temperatures have been documented to cause malformations; neural tube defects (NTDs) are among the most frequently reported. In humans, data are inconclusive and often conflicting. The objective of our report is to determine the risk for neural tube defects associated with maternal hyperthermia in early pregnancy. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate available evidence on this topic in humans. MEDLINE, EMBASE, references from published reports, and biologic abstracts from meetings were searched for relevant studies. Reviewers evaluated all the retrieved articles and extracted the relevant data. Individual and summary odds ratios and relative risks were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method. RESULTS: Fifteen studies, reporting on 1,719 cases and 37,898 noncases, were included in the meta-analysis. The overall odds ratio for neural tube defects associated with maternal hyperthermia was 1.92 (95% confidence interval = 1.61-2.29). When analyzed separately, the 9 case-control studies had an odds ratio of 1.93 (1.53-2.42). The summary relative risk for the 6 cohort studies was 1.95 (1.30-2.92). CONCLUSIONS: Maternal hyperthermia in early pregnancy is associated with increased risk for neural tube defects and may be a human teratogen.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it