Phocomelia: A worldwide descriptive epidemiologic study in a large series of cases from the International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research, and overview of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidemiologic data on phocomelia are scarce. This study presents an epidemiologic analysis of the largest series of phocomelia cases known to date. Data were provided by 19 birth defect surveillance programs, all members of the International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research. Depending on the program, data corresponded to a period from 1968 through 2006. A total of 22,740,933 live births, stillbirths and, for some programs, elective terminations of pregnancy for fetal anomaly (ETOPFA) were monitored. After a detailed review of clinical data, only true phocomelia cases were included. Descriptive data are presented and additional analyses compared isolated cases with those with multiple congenital anomalies (MCA), excluding syndromes. We also briefly compared congenital anomalies associated with nonsyndromic phocomelia with those presented with amelia, another rare severe congenital limb defect. A total of 141 phocomelia cases registered gave an overall total prevalence of 0.62 per 100,000 births (95% confidence interval: 0.52-0.73). Three programs (Australia Victoria, South America ECLAMC, Italy North East) had significantly different prevalence estimates. Most cases (53.2%) had isolated phocomelia, while 9.9% had syndromes. Most nonsyndromic cases were monomelic (55.9%), with an excess of left (64.9%) and upper limb (64.9%) involvement. Most nonsyndromic cases (66.9%) were live births; most isolated cases (57.9%) weighed more than 2,499 g; most MCA (60.7%) weighed less than 2,500 g, and were more likely stillbirths (30.8%) or ETOPFA (15.4%) than isolated cases. The most common associated defects were musculoskeletal, cardiac, and intestinal. Epidemiological differences between phocomelia and amelia highlighted possible differences in their causes.
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 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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".