Demographic and Reproductive Factors Associated with Hemifacial Microsomia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify demographic and reproductive risk factors for hemifacial microsomia in offspring. DESIGN: In a case-control study, maternal interviews were conducted within 3 years after delivery. Cases with hemifacial microsomia were ascertained from craniofacial centers in 26 cities in the United States and Canada. Controls were patients of the cases' pediatricians. Two hundred thirty-nine cases were compared with 854 controls. Odds ratios for various infant and maternal factors were estimated. RESULTS: Cases had lower birth weights, were more often male or a twin, and had more relatives with craniofacial malformations or hearing loss than controls. Case mothers had lower family incomes, had a lower body mass index, had more vaginal bleeding in the second trimester, and were more likely to have had a spontaneous abortion in a previous pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Nonmodifiable factors (age and parity) were not associated with hemifacial microsomia risk. Factors that are related to poverty (low family income, late recognition of pregnancy, and low body mass index) are associated with an increase in risk. High risk estimates for multiple pregnancies and second-trimester vaginal bleeding suggest a vascular etiology.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".