MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529777800 · doi:10.1111/ped.13176

Maternal zinc deficiency and congenital anomalies in newborns

2016· article· en· W2529777800 on OpenAlexaff
Mahmood Moghimi, Sahar Ashrafzadeh, Sepehr Rassi, Ali Naseh

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatrics International · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicTrace Elements in Health
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineZinc deficiency (plant disorder)PediatricsPathologyMicronutrient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Zinc deficiency in pregnant women is common, especially in the third trimester of pregnancy. The available data, however, on the association between zinc deficiency and congenital malformations in the Iranian population are insufficient. The aim of this study was therefore to determine whether maternal serum zinc deficiency is associated with major congenital malformations in newborns. METHODS: This descriptive, case-control study involved mothers of 80 neonates with congenital anomalies (study group) admitted to the Mofid Children's Hospital, Tehran, Iran. During the same period (2014 and 2015), serum zinc was measured in 80 mothers who had delivered normal newborns without congenital malformations (control group). RESULTS: Mothers with serum zinc deficiency had a more than sevenfold risk of malformations in the fetus compared with mothers with normal serum zinc (OR, 7.013; 95%CI: 2.716-18.110). Newborns with malformation weighing ≤2500 g were associated with lower maternal serum zinc compared with the control group (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: There is an association between congenital malformation in newborns and maternal zinc deficiency.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatrics InternationalSame topicTrace Elements in HealthFrench-language works237,207