The Role of Paternal Age and Occurrence of Orofacial Clefts in South Indian Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND The association between orofacial cleft and parental age is evident. This study focuses on paternal age playing a vital role in the birth of children with orofacial clefts. We wanted to assess the role of paternal age as a factor in the development of congenital anomalies in this study. METHODS A case control study was performed on 1000 cases and 250 controls in Mangalore. The parents were interviewed regarding their age at the time of conception. RESULTS 46.4 % of fathers of the cleft children belonged to 30 - 34 years of age group and 25 % belonged to 25 - 29 years of age group at the time of conception. In the control group, 38 % belonged to 30 - 34 years of age group and 24.8 % belonged to 25 - 29 years of age group. CONCLUSIONS Paternal age in the age group of 30 - 34 years has significant contribution in the birth of orofacial children with cleft deformities. KEY WORDS Orofacial cleft, Paternal Age, Congenital anomalies
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".