MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096564572

Hirschsprung’s Disease: Associated Abnormalities and Demography

2015· article· en· W7096564572 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital gastrointestinal and neural anomalies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiseasePopulationQuarter (Canadian coin)EpidemiologyIncidence (geometry)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

l We here examine the demographic parameters of pa-tients with Hirschsprung’s disease. The study population includes all patients with histologically confirmed disease treated at the Children’s Hospital Medical Center of Boston over the 25-year period extending from 1961 through the first quarter of 1986. There were 179 cases. Overall, children with Hirschsprung’s disease were found less likely to be first born (P <.Ol). This relationship was seen to persist irrespective of maternal age, maternal race, or type of disease. The implications of this finding are discussed. Overall, 22 % of these children had one or more associated abnormalities involving the neurological, cardiovascular, urological, and gastrointestinal systems. Many of the disorders appeared to be related to neurocrestopathies. Frequent associations in-cluded Down’s syndrome, defects in cardiac septation, tetral-ogy of Fallot, and Dandy-Walker syndrome. These conditions occurred more frequently than would have been predicted through chance alone. This study found no association between an increased maternal age and the occurrence of Hirschsprung’s disease. This study also found that approxi-mately 7 % of the affected children had been born prema-turely.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCongenital gastrointestinal and neural anomaliesFrench-language works237,207