Patterns, prevalence, risk factors, and survival of newborns with congenital heart defects in a Saudi population: a three-year, cohort case-control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Congenital heart defects (CHD) are the most common types of birth defects. The prevalence of CHD, mostly from retrospective studies, ranges between 2.1 and 10.7/1000 live births. For physicians to provide appropriate health care, it is important to know the prevalence of CHD within their patient populations. In this prospective study, we assessed the prevalence, risk factors, types, and survival of CHD among babies born to Saudi mothers over a three-year period. In this prospective cohort study, all women delivered at Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Saudi Arabia over a three-year period and were recruited during their antenatal care visits or at delivery. Antenatal foetal anomaly scan, postnatal clinical examination, echocardiography, cardiac catheterization, and follow-up to 2 years of age were used to assess the patterns, prevalence, and survival of babies with CHD. A case-control study was nested within the original cohort to assess risk factors for CHD. Of 28,646 eligible births, 424 babies were diagnosed with CHD (14.8/1000 births), and 91 of these babies had severe CHD (3.2/1000 births). Associated non-cardiac anomalies were found in 40.1% (170 of 424) of these babies. Trisomy 21 was the most frequent chromosomal anomaly. Within the first 2 years of life, 74 of 424 babies died (17.4%). Among mothers with infants who had CHD without associated non-cardiac anomalies, risk factors for CHD included maternal age ≥ 31 years, body mass index ≥30, insulin-dependent diabetes, and an occupation of an unemployed housewife. In the Saudi population we studied, the prevalence of CHD was higher than reported in other populations in the Middle East and in Europe. Plans to ameliorate modifiable risk factors and improve prenatal diagnosis of CHD are needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".