Prevention of Orofacial Clefts: Does Pregnancy Planning Have a Role?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between pregnancy planning and orofacial clefts in the United Kingdom. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: Scotland and the Manchester and Merseyside regions of England. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and ninety-one children born with nonsyndromic orofacial cleft, 1997 to 2000, and 247 controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cleft lip with and without cleft palate, and cleft palate. RESULTS: There was an inverse association between planning for pregnancy and orofacial cleft in the offspring (odds ratio [OR] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.33-0.79). An unplanned pregnancy together with smoking in the first trimester of pregnancy resulted in almost treble the risk of a child with an orofacial cleft when compared with those who planned their pregnancy and did not smoke (OR = 2.92, CI = 1.50-5.65). CONCLUSIONS: Planned pregnancies were associated with a lower risk of orofacial clefts. Isolation of the elements of pregnancy planning implicated in these results is difficult. Current preconception advice needs to reach a wider audience; however, for maximum impact, efforts are needed to reduce the numbers of unplanned pregnancies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".