MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403604393 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.230905

Head circumference values among Inuit children in Nunavut, Canada: a retrospective cohort study

2024· article· en· W4403604393 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kristina Joyal, Sorcha Collins, Amber Miners, Nick Barrowman, Ewa Sucha, Jean Allen, Sharon Edmunds, Amy Caughey, Michelle Doucette, Selina Khatun, Gwen Healey Akearok, Laura Arbour, Sunita Venkateswaran

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Abuse and Related Trauma
Canadian institutionsRoyal University Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHead circumferenceCohortHead (geology)Retrospective cohort studyMedicineCircumferenceCohort studyPediatricsDemographySurgeryPathologyBiologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background:</h3> Inuit children from Nunavut have been observed to have high rates of macrocephaly, which sometimes leads to burdensome travel for medical evaluation, often with no pathology identified upon assessment. Given reports that World Health Organization (WHO) growth charts may not reflect all populations, we sought to compare head circumference measurements in a cohort of Inuit children with the WHO charts. <h3>Methods:</h3> We extracted head circumference data from a previous retrospective cohort study where, with Inuit partnership, we reviewed medical records of Inuit children (from birth to age 5 yr) born between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2013, and residing in Nunavut. To create a cohort of Inuit children similar to the cohorts used in the development of the WHO growth charts, we excluded children with preterm birth, documented neurologic or genetic disease, and most congenital anomalies. We compared head circumference values with the 2007 WHO charts using centiles estimated with a generalized additive model. <h3>Results:</h3> We analyzed records of 1960 Inuit children (8866 data points), of whom 993 (50.8%) were female. Most data were from ages 0 to 36 months. At all age points, we found that the study cohort had statistically significantly larger head circumferences than WHO medians, with most <i>z</i> scores for head circumference measurements among Inuit children falling 0.5–1 standard deviations above the WHO reference (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). At age 12 months, median head circumferences were 1.3 cm and 1.5 cm larger for male and female Inuit children, respectively. Using WHO growth curves, macrocephaly was significantly overdiagnosed and microcephaly was underdiagnosed (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). <h3>Interpretation:</h3> Our results support the observation that Inuit children from Nunavut have larger head circumferences than other populations, and use of the WHO charts may thus lead to overdiagnosis of macrocephaly and underdiagnosis of microcephaly. Population-specific growth curves for Inuit children should be considered to provide timely and appropriate diagnoses of microcephaly and avoid overinvestigation of macrocephaly.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicChild Abuse and Related TraumaFrench-language works237,207