Incidence of Congenital Limb Reduction Defects: A Systematic Review
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".