ArticleAmerican journal of medical genetics. Part A2024
Classification of isolated versus multiple birth defects: An automated process for population-based registries.
Article in American journal of medical genetics. Part A, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Epidemiologic studies of birth defects often conduct separate analyses for cases that have isolated defects (e.g., spina bifida only) and cases that have multiple defects (e.g., spina bifida and a congenital heart defect). However, in some instances, cases with additional defects (e.g., spina bifida and clubfoot) may be more appropriately considered as isolated because the co-occurring defect (clubfoot) is believed to be developmentally related to the defect of interest. Determining which combinations should be considered isolated can be challenging and potentially resource intensive for registries. Thus, we developed automated classification procedures for differentiating between isolated versus multiple defects, while accounting for developmentally related defects, and applied the approach to data from the Texas Birth Defects Registry (1999-2018 deliveries). Among 235,544 nonsyndromic cases in Texas, 89% of cases were classified as having isolated defects, with proportions ranging from 25% to 92% across 43 specific defects analyzed. A large proportion of isolated cases with spina bifida (44%), lower limb reduction defects (44%), and holoprosencephaly (32%) had developmentally related defects. Overall, our findings strongly support the need to account for isolated versus multiple defects in risk factor association analyses and to account for developmentally related defects when doing so, which has implications for interpreting prior studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.