Akraba Evliliği Türkiye Sakarya Bölgesindeki Konjenital Anomalilerin Hala Önemli Bir Nedenidir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to provide an overview to risk factors of birth defects and to determine the general attitudes and behaviours of the pregnant women during pregnancy process in the region of Sakarya in Turkey. This is a definitive retrospective study carried out between 3rd April-2nd June 2007. The sample group of the normal child group is randomly selected from Sakarya Gynecology and Child Hospital and the sample group of the children with abnormalities is randomly selected from Canada Training and Research School in Sakarya. The data for the study was obtained by the means of the survey form prepared by the researchers. 230 families were included to the study. When we appreciate the relationship between the couples we see that 10.4% of group 1 and 30.4% of group 2 were married with relative. 4.3% of group 1 and 30.4% of group 2 were cross cousin marriage. There was a significant difference (p< 0.001) between the two groups. The results revealed differences between the sample groups of normal and faulty birth childrens parents in terms of consanguineous and non-consanguineous matings. Such a discussion, if joined widely by first step therapy medical doctors and midwive, can result in more coordinated and effective approaches to the prevention of environmentally provoked abnormalities through beter understanding of the nature and management of risk factors result in birth defects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".