Factors Associated With Increased Risk of Clubfoot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies investigating the causes of clubfoot have shown conflicting results, potentially because of retrospective study designs or incomplete assessment of causative factors. The study aim was to examine risk factors for clubfoot in a large prospective Norwegian cohort. METHODS: Exposures prior and during pregnancy were identified through the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study (MoBa) conducted by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. This was linked to the Norwegian Medical Birth Registry, which provided clubfoot diagnosis through ICD-10 code Q66.0. Logistic regression analysis investigated associations between potential risk factors and development of clubfoot. RESULTS: A total of 121 clubfoot cases were identified; 1.1 per 1000 births. Parental diagnosis of clubfoot [odds ratio (OR): 31.5; 95% confidence interval (CI):9.61-103.3] and cigarette smoking, both in the three months prior to pregnancy (OR:1.82; 95%CI:1.05-3.18) and the first trimester (OR:2.67; 95% CI:1.28-5.55) were associated with clubfoot. Infants with clubfoot had greater solvent exposure (OR:1.66; 95% CI:1.00-2.76). Oligohydramnios, parental age, parental education, parity, maternal anxiety or depression, alcohol use, season of birth did not have statistically significant associations. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to parental diagnosis of clubfoot, results confirm the previously reported association between clubfoot and smoking, and counter previous evidence supporting season of birth, parental education, and other risk factors. Further studies are needed to investigate solvent exposure as a risk factor for clubfoot. Exposure to smoke and solvents can be controlled; this study highlights the importance of public health initiatives to limit these exposures both during pregnancy and in those considering conceiving in the future.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".