Congenital anomalies in children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and in their family
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the exception of Down syndrome the association between congenital anomalies and acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) is presently unclear. We investigated this association in a population-based case-control study carried out in the province of Québec, CANADA: METHODS: A total of 491 incident cases diagnosed between 1980 and 1993 and aged 0-9 years were included in the study. Healthy controls (n = 491) matched on age, sex, and region of residence at the time of diagnosis were selected from government family allowance files. Using a structured questionnaire and the International Classification of Diseases (Ninth Revision) list of congenital anomalies, presence of an anomaly was determined by interviewing the parents of the study subjects; mothers gave information on anomalies in the study subject, their siblings and her family, whereas fathers provided information on anomalies in their family. RESULTS: The adjusted risk for ALL was not increased in children who had any anomaly (odds ratio [OR] = 1.07 [95% CI : 0.70-1.65]) whereas compared to control siblings, case siblings had a higher risk of anomalies (OR = 1.54, 95% CI : 0.99- 2.42). This increase was likely due to excesses in anomalies of the heart (OR = 2.49, 95% CI : 1.23-5.04). Risk for ALL was elevated in children with a history of a congenital anomaly in their mother (OR = 1.61, 95% CI : 0.80-3.22) or her family (OR = 1.45, 95% CI : 0.94-2.25). CONCLUSIONS: Although based on small numbers for specific anomalies, these findings suggest that congenital anomalies are more prevalent in siblings and maternal family of ALL cases than in controls.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".