Incidence of Congenital Limb Reduction Defects: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Congenital limb reduction defects (CLRDs) are missing or hypoplastic whole or part of limbs that occur in utero and cause significant functional impairment. This systematic review aims to describe the incidence of CLRDs published to date in the English literature. Methods: A systematic review was performed using Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in April 2021. Two independent reviewers performed title and abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction. Conflicts were resolved by a third independent reviewer. The pooled incidence rate per 10,000 was calculated. Results: Search results were performed on April 10, 2021. 2076 articles were screened, 288 studies underwent full-text review, and 100 papers were included for final data analysis. The average pooled incidence of CLRDs was 4.48/10,000 (95% confidence interval = 3.89–5.16) with the highest incidence in Western Asia and the lowest in Eastern Asia. There was a higher incidence of upper limbs, males, and left-sided defects. Incidence has decreased over time (−0.0103, 95% CI = −0.203–−0.003, P = 0.04). Conclusions: The incidence of CLRDs published in the English literature to date was calculated, outlining the importance of screening, standardized classification system, and healthcare resource requirements.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it