Prevalence rates of spina bifida in Alberta, Canada: 2001–2015. Can we achieve more prevention?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite a substantial prevention of neural tube defects with mandatory folic acid (FA) fortification, a significant number of cases still exist in Alberta, Canada, particularly spina bifida (SB). The purpose of this study was to review cases with SB to provide a possible explanation as to why SB is still prevalent in Alberta. METHODS: Cases with SB born between 2001 and 2015, ascertained by the Alberta Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System, were reviewed. Cases were classified as lipomeningomyelocele, syndrome/recognized condition, chromosome, associated multiple congenital anomalies, and isolated. The notice of birth forms were reviewed to determine FA supplement use before and/or during pregnancy. Socioeconomic status (SES) was also examined. RESULTS: The majority of cases were isolated (58%). The total prevalence of SB for 2001-2015 was 0.37/1,000 births, with isolated SB being 0.21/1,000 births. Urinary and congenital heart defects were the most frequently identified associated anomalies. FA supplementation could not be determined for 69% of our cases because of a lack of completeness of the notice of birth forms. There was no significant difference regarding SES between mothers of cases and all mothers in Alberta. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to examine cases with isolated SB to determine why mandatory FA fortification has not completely prevented SB and to identify which cases are not folate-responsive. A more concerted effort of public health education and promotion with the identification of women with suboptimal folate status and a better understanding of the role of other micronutrients is necessary.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".