Congenital anomalies in Amsterdam:results of the 'Amsterdam-Born Children and their Development' study

OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence of congenital anomalies in children born in Amsterdam and to analyse potential differences between groups based on risk factors such as ethnicity and maternal age.DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study.METHODS: Between 2003 and 2004, mothers filled in questionnaires on their newborn children on behalf of the Amsterdam-Born Children and their Development study (ABCD study). Data from 5,276 liveborn children in this cohort were used to calculate the prevalence rates of congenital anomalies in Amsterdam. These were compared with expected prevalence rates based on Eurocat data for the Northern region of the Netherlands during the years 2000-2005. Prevalence rates were compared between subgroups which had been divided according to risk factors: maternal ethnic origin, maternal age, parity, gender of child, inter-pregnancy interval, years of maternal education, smoking, alcohol use, and periconceptional folate use.RESULTS: The total prevalence of major congenital anomalies among liveborn children in the ABCD cohort was as expected based on the figures from the Eurocat registration. Digestive anomalies were reported significantly less frequently (n = 1) than expected (n = 10). Mothers of Surinam descent more frequently reported a child with a musculoskeletal anomaly. Older mothers were more likely to report congenital anomalies. No significant trends regarding other risk factors were observed.CONCLUSIONS: No significant trends regarding ethnicity and congenital anomalies were detected. The interpretation of the other results was hampered by methodological differences between the ABCD study and Eurocat. Nationwide registration with active case detection of congenital anomalies is therefore recommended.</p

Stay Tuned: What Is Special About Not Shifting Attention?

Background: When studying attentional orienting processes, brain activity elicited by symbolic cue is usually compared to a neutral condition in which no information is provided about the upcoming target location. It is generally assumed that when a neutral cue is provided, participants do not shift their attention. The present study sought to validate this assumption. We further investigated whether anticipated task demands had an impact on brain activity related to processing symbolic cues. Methodology/Principal Findings: Two experiments were conducted, during which event-related potentials were elicited by symbolic cues that instructed participants to shift their attention to a particular location on a computer screen. In Experiment 1, attention shift-inducing cues were compared to non-informative cues, while in both conditions participants were required to detect target stimuli that were subsequently presented at peripheral locations. In Experiment 2, a non-ambiguous "stay-central'' cue that explicitly required participants not to shift their attention was used instead. In the latter case, target stimuli that followed a stay-central cue were also presented at a central location. Both experiments revealed enlarged early latency contralateral ERP components to shift-inducing cues compared to those elicited by either non-informative (exp. 1) or stay-central cues (exp. 2). In addition, cueing effects were modulated by the anticipated difficulty of the upcoming target, particularly so in Experiment 2. A positive difference, predominantly over the posterior contralateral scalp areas, could be observed for stay-central cues, especially for those predicting that the upcoming target would be easy. This effect was not present for non-informative cues. Conclusions/Significance: We interpret our result in terms of a more rapid engagement of attention occurring in the presence of a more predictive instruction (i.e. stay-central easy target). Our results indicate that the human brain is capable of very rapidly identifying the difference between different types of instructions