MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2568161469

INCIDENCE, IMPORTANCE AND CO-OCCURRENCE OF CONGENITAL ANOMALIES IN INFANTS BORN PRETERM

2008· article· en· W2568161469 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ariane Boivin, I Mercanti, Chantelle C. Lachance, Antoine Payot, Keith J. Barrington, Anne Monique Nuyt

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria HospitalMcGill University Health CentreUniversité LavalRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Gestational agePediatricsGestationObstetricsPregnancy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Congenital anomalies (CA) are relatively frequent and have been reported to be more frequent in infants born preterm ( Aims The first aim of this study is to assess the incidence of CA according to weeks of gestation. The second aim is to evaluate the correlation between the number and the severity of CA and gestational age. Methods This is a hospital-based study, which utilized neonatal data between 2001 and 2006 from a hospital in Montreal, Canada. Results Over this time period, 19 105 live births were recorded and the incidence of CA was 7.9%. A regression demonstrates an inverse relationship between CA (without CA vs with one or more CA) and gestational age (β = −0.109; F(1, 19103) = 228.48, p Conclusions Incidence, importance (major vs minor) and co-occurrence of congenital anomalies are inversely correlated with the gestational age including within the term range.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in ChildhoodSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207