Association between prepregnancy maternal body mass index and the risk of having an infant with a congenital diaphragmatic hernia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A previous study observed that women who are underweight prior to conception were significantly more likely to have infants affected by congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH). The objective of the current study was to examine the association between maternal body mass index and the risk of a CDH-affected offspring based on a larger number of cases of CDH. METHODS: A case control study was conducted using data collected by the Boston University Slone Epidemiology Center Birth Defects Study, which identifies infants with major malformations who are born in the metropolitan area surrounding Boston, Massachusetts; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Control infants were selected from infants without malformations who were born in the same areas. The study included 85 cases of CDH and 655 controls delivered between 1993 and 1997. RESULTS: After adjustment for maternal education and maternal age, we observed that women who were thin or underweight for their height (body mass index < or = 19.0 kg/m2) had an increased risk of having an infant with isolated CDH (OR = 1.9; 95% CI = 0.92-4.1), but no increase in the risk of having a CDH infant with multiple defects (OR = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.29-2.6) compared with all other women. CONCLUSIONS: Although our finding for isolated CDH was not statistically significant (P = 0.08), it suggests that the offspring of thin or underweight women may have an increased risk of isolated CDH. This finding requires confirmation. If it is confirmed, further research on factors associated with being underweight should be explored such as diet, exercise, and use of drugs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".