Absence of Association of Thrombophilia Polymorphisms with Intrauterine Growth Restriction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous data have demonstrated associations between thrombophilia polymorphisms in pregnant women and an increased risk of intrauterine growth restriction in their offspring, but this finding remains uncertain. METHODS: We performed a hospital-based case-control study and a family-based study including 493 newborns with intrauterine growth restriction (defined by birth weight below the 10th percentile for gestational age and sex according to Canadian norms) and 472 controls (with birth weight at or above the 10th percentile). We determined the presence or absence in newborns and their parents of the following polymorphisms: methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) C677T and A1298C, factor V Leiden G1691A, and prothrombin G20210A. Mothers were interviewed to obtain information on other risk factors for intrauterine growth restriction. RESULTS: The risk of intrauterine growth restriction was not increased among mothers carrying a polymorphism associated with thrombophilia. In the case-control study, the odds ratios associated with two copies of the variant, after adjustment for newborn genotype and other risk factors, were 1.55 for MTHFR C677T (95 percent confidence interval, 0.83 to 2.90) and 0.49 for MTHFR A1298C (95 percent confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.93); heterozygotes for factor V Leiden had an odds ratio of 1.18 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.54 to 2.55), and heterozygotes for prothrombin G20210A had an odds ratio of 0.92 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.36 to 2.35). These polymorphisms in the newborn were not associated with an increased risk. Newborns who were homozygous for the MTHFR C677T variant had a decreased risk of intrauterine growth restriction (odds ratio after adjustment for mother's genotype and other confounders, 0.52 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.94]). The results of the family-based study supported those of the case-control study. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not indicate that there are associations between maternal or newborn polymorphisms associated with thrombophilia and an increased risk of intrauterine growth restriction.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".