A Population-Based Evaluation of Antenatal Diagnosis of Orofacial Clefts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the changes in prevalence and antenatal detection of cleft lip with or without cleft palate and isolated cleft palate and to describe the association between anomalies and rates of antenatal diagnosis in Nova Scotia from 1992 to 2002. DESIGN: This population-based cohort study employed the Nova Scotia Atlee Perinatal Database, the Fetal Anomaly Database, and IWK Cleft Palate Database in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cleft type, mode of diagnosis, and associated abnormalities of orofacial clefts for liveborn infants, stillbirths, and second trimester terminations of pregnancy between 1992 and 2002 were determined. RESULTS: There were 225 fetuses identified as having orofacial clefts. The overall prevalence of clefts was 2.1 in 1000 live births, and this prevalence did not change with time. The overall antenatal detection of cleft lip with or without cleft palate was 23%; however, there was improvement in detection of cleft lip with or without cleft palate from the years 1992 to 1996 (14%) to the years 1997 to 2002 (30%, p = .02). No isolated cleft palates were detected antenatally. Associated structural anomalies were seen in 34.2% of cases with orofacial clefts, and chromosomal abnormalities were associated with 9.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of orofacial clefts in Nova Scotia has not changed from 1992 to 2002. The proportion of antenatally diagnosed cleft lip with or without cleft palate in Nova Scotia is consistent with rates reported in the literature and has increased from 1992 to 2002.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".