MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124912605 · doi:10.7863/jum.2011.30.7.989

Observed Prevalence of Congenital Heart Defects From a Surveillance Study in China

2011· article· en· W2124912605 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineTetralogy of FallotConfidence intervalHypoplastic left heart syndromeHeart defectPediatricsPopulationHeart diseaseFetal echocardiographyPrenatal diagnosisFetusPregnancyCardiologyInternal medicineObstetrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of major and minor congenital heart defects among fetuses and neonates using sonography in a general population of 4 areas surrounding Shanghai, China. METHODS: Pregnant women were recruited between April 2004 and December 2005 in Jiaxing City, Suzhou City, Changshu County, and Haining County. All participants could have 3 sonographic examinations performed by specially trained physicians regardless of medical indication: a fetal sonographic screen and fetal echocardiography between 20 and 28 weeks' gestation and neonatal echocardiography. Diagnoses of congenital heart defects were made on the basis of review of all available scans by an international group of experts in pediatric cardiology. Prevalence rates were calculated per 1000 births. RESULTS: Among 4006 scanned fetuses and neonates, there were 75 congenital heart defects, including 12 major defects. The observed prevalence for all congenital heart defects was 18.7 (95% confidence interval, 14.8-23.5) per 1000 births, and the prevalence for major defects was 3.0 (95% confidence interval, 1.6-5.2) per 1000 births. The most common defects were ventricular septal defects (n = 47 [62.7%]), atrial septal defects (n = 14 [18.7%]), tetralogy of Fallot (n = 4 [5.3%]), and hypoplastic left heart syndrome (n = 3 [4.0%]). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of all congenital heart defects in the 4 areas of China studied was higher than that reported in other countries, with ventricular septal defects being the most frequent defects. Our data likely reflect a better estimate of the total prevalence of congenital heart defects in China than reported previously.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.254 · 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