MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119473163 · doi:10.1093/humrep/dem043

Teenage pregnancy and congenital anomalies: which system is vulnerable?

2007· article· en· W2119473163 on OpenAlexaff
Xi-Kuan Chen, Shi Wu Wen, Nathalie Fleming, Qiuying Yang, Mark Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOmphaloceleMedicineGastroschisisPregnancySpina bifidaOdds ratioAnencephalyObstetricsHydrocephalusPediatricsSurgeryFetusInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Teenage pregnancy may be associated with some forms of congenital anomalies. The objective of this study was to identify the types of congenital anomalies associated with teenage pregnancy. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective cohort study of 5 542 861 nulliparous pregnant women younger than 35 years of age with a live singleton birth between 1995 and 2000 in the USA. RESULTS: Compared with adult pregnancy (20-34 years old), and after adjustment for confounding variables, teenage pregnancy (13-19 years old) was associated with increased risk of central nervous system anomalies [odds ratio (OR) 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01, 1.16], gastrointestinal anomalies (OR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.31, 1.49) and musculoskeletal/integumental anomalies (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.10). The teenage pregnancy associated increase in risk for central nervous system anomalies was mainly attributable to anomalies other than anencephalus, spina bifida/meningocele and hydrocephalus and microcephalus; for gastrointestinal anomalies the risk was mainly attributable to omphalocele/gastroschisis; and for musculoskeletal/integumental anomalies the risk was mainly attributable to cleft lip/palate and polydactyly/syndactyly/adactyly. No increased risk was found for circulatory/respiratory anomalies, urogenital anomalies, or Down's syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Teenage pregnancy increases the risks of congenital anomalies in central nervous, gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal/integumental systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 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

Citations93
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman ReproductionSame topicFolate and B Vitamins ResearchFrench-language works237,207