Using state and provincial surveillance programs to reduce risk of recurrence of neural tube defects in the United States and Canada: A missed opportunity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Once a woman has had a fetus or infant affected with a neural tube defect (NTD), the risk of recurrence is approximately 3%. This risk can be significantly reduced by folic acid supplement consumption during the periconceptional period; however, this requires women at risk to be adequately informed about the appropriate dosage and timing of supplement intake before planning another pregnancy. As birth defects surveillance programs are tasked with identifying and documenting NTD-affected pregnancies and births, they are in a unique position to support recurrence prevention activities. METHODS: In 2015, we surveyed state and provincial birth defects surveillance programs to assess their NTD recurrence prevention activities. The online survey was sent to programs in 52 United States (U.S.) jurisdictions and all 13 provinces and territories in Canada. Findings were compared with a similar survey conducted in 2005 among U.S. programs. RESULTS: In 2015, of the 44 U.S. and Canadian surveillance programs that responded, only 9 programs (7 U.S. and 2 Canadian) reported currently having activities specifically directed toward preventing NTD recurrence. Compared with a 2005 survey of U.S. programs, the number of U.S. programs working on NTD recurrence prevention decreased by almost 50% (from 13 to 7 programs). CONCLUSION: The number of birth defects surveillance programs with NTD recurrence prevention activities has decreased over the past decade due to a range of barriers, most notably a lack of resources. However, while some recurrence prevention activities require part-time staff, other activities could be accomplished using minimal resources. Birth Defects Research (Part A) 106:875-880, 2016.© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".