The Effect of Using In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) on Increasing the Prevalence of Craniosynostosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Craniosynostosis, a malformation caused by premature closure of one or more cranial sutures, is a rare congenital disability usually of unknown cause; however, it is often associated with assisted reproductive technology. Given the increasing prevalence of craniosynostosis and the use of the in vitro fertilization (IVF) method, the authors evaluated the association between IVF and the prevalence of craniosynostosis. METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed records of patients with nonsyndromic craniosynostosis who underwent surgery in Mofid Hospital, a tertiary children's hospital affiliated to Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, between 2010 and 2019. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients aged one month to 7 years old, were evaluated. Out of 200 patients, 43% were plagiocephalic, 39% trigonocephalic, 8.5% scaphocephalic, 8% brachiocephalic, and 1.5% were mixed. Nine (4.5%) patients had received clomiphene citrate. Eight (4%) mothers had become pregnant under IVF, and they all had used clomiphene citrate for ovulation stimulation. No use of artificial insemination was reported. Of the eight patients whose mother had become pregnant through IVF, three were trigonocephalic, and five were plagiocephalic. CONCLUSIONS: Without a control group, we are not able report the statistical results confirming or denying a link between craniosynostosis and infertility treatment. However, 4% prevalence of IVF use among craniosynostosis patients is significant. Further studies with a broader statistical community are suggested in this regard.
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 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".