Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 581

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Guidelines for case classification for the national birth defects prevention study

Rasmussen, Sonja A., Olney, Richard S., Holmes, Lewis B., Lin, Angela E., Keppler‐Noreuil, Kim M., Moore, Cynthia A.·2003·Birth Defects Research Part A: Clinical and Molecular Teratology

Abstract

Background: Previous studies have suggested that etiologic heterogeneity may complicate epidemiologic analyses designed to identify risk factors for birth defects. Case classification uses knowledge of embryologic and pathogenetic mechanisms to make case groups more homogeneous and is important to the success of birth defects studies. METHODS: The goal of the National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS), an ongoing multi‐site case–control study, is to identify environmental and genetic risk factors for birth defects. Information on environmental risk factors is collected through an hour‐long maternal interview, and DNA is collected from the infant and both parents for evaluation of genetic risk factors. Clinical data on infants are reviewed by clinical geneticists to ensure they meet the detailed case definitions developed specifically for the study. To standardize the methods of case classification for the study, an algorithm has been developed to guide NBDPS clinical geneticists in this process. RESULTS: Methods for case classification into isolated, multiple, and syndrome categories are described. Defects considered minor for the purposes of case classification are defined. Differences in the approach to case classification for studies of specific defects and of specific exposures are noted. CONCLUSIONS: The case classification schema developed for the NBDPS may be of value to other clinicians working on epidemiologic studies of birth defects etiology. Consideration of these guidelines will lead to more comparable case groups, an important element of careful studies aimed at identifying risk factors for birth defects. Birth Defects Research (Part A) 67:193–201, 2003. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bdra.10012

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 581

Metadata

Authors
Rasmussen, S. A., Olney, R. S., Holmes, L. B., Lin, A. E., Keppler‐Noreuil, K. M., & Moore, C. A.
Venue
Birth Defects Research Part A: Clinical and Molecular Teratology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-03
Volume
67
Issue
3
Pages
193-201
ISSN
  • 1542-0752 (ISSN-L)
  • 1542-0760
OpenAlex
W2136243502
Cited by
581
References
1
FWCI
9.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Guidelines for case classification for the national birth defects prevention study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bdra.10012
The paper
Rasmussen, S. A., Olney, R. S., Holmes, L. B., Lin, A. E., Keppler‐Noreuil, K. M., & Moore, C. A. (2003). Guidelines for case classification for the national birth defects prevention study. Birth Defects Research Part A: Clinical and Molecular Teratology. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdra.10012

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.