MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prenatal exposure to misoprostol and vascular disruption defects: A case-control study

2000· article· en· W2131025374 on OpenAlexaff
Fernando Vargas, Lavínia Schüler‐Faccini, Décio Brunoni, Chong Ae Kim, Valentina Meloni, S M M Sugayama, Lílian Maria José Albano, Juan Clinton Llerena, J.C.C. Almeida, Ana Maria Duarte, Denise P. Cavalcanti, Eny Maria Goloni‐Bertollo, Anna Conte, Gideon Koren, Antonio Addis

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPectus Deformity Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisoprostolMedicineObstetricsPrenatal exposureTeratologyPregnancyCase-control studyGestationPediatricsAbortionInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prenatal exposure to misoprostol has been associated with Moebius and limb defects. Vascular disruption has been proposed as the mechanism for these teratogenic effects. The present study is a multicenter, case-control study that was designed to compare the frequency of prenatal misoprostol use between mothers of Brazilian children diagnosed with vascular disruption defects and matched control mothers of children diagnosed with other types of defects. A total of 93 cases and 279 controls were recruited in eight participating centers. Prenatal exposure was identified in 32 infants diagnosed with vascular disruption defects (34.4%) compared with only 12 (4.3%) in the control group (P<0.0000001). Our data suggest that prenatal exposure to misoprostol is associated to the occurrence of vascular disruption defects in the newborns.

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)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations137
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical GeneticsSame topicPectus Deformity Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207