MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062900227 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/cki201

Infant mortality, ethnicity, and genetically determined disorders in The Netherlands

2005· article· en· W2062900227 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
T. W. J. Schulpen, Joke C.M. van Wieringen, Pien J. van Brummen, Jantien M. van Riel, Frits A. Beemer, Paul Westers, J. Huber

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRace, Genetics, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupIndigenousDemographyInfant mortalityPopulationQuarter (Canadian coin)MedicineInbreedingTurkishCause of deathTurkish populationGeographyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Infant mortality of ethnic minorities in The Netherlands (10% of the population) is twice as high as in the indigenous Dutch population. Causes of death are different for the diverse migrant groups. METHODS: Hospital records of nearly 600 infants who died in the four major cities between 1995 and 1998 were analysed according to the cause of death, ethnicity, and possible heredity. RESULTS: There was a four to five times higher proportion of hereditary causes of death in the Moroccan and Turkish population, compared with the Surinamese/Antillians and indigenous Dutch. CONCLUSIONS: This might be explained by a high inbreeding coefficient as three-quarters of the marriage partners are recruited from the home villages and between a quarter and a third of these marriages are between first cousins. Health promotion activities in The Netherlands have not been successful so far. Preconception genetic counselling might help in reducing these differences.

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)0.001
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations30
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicRace, Genetics, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207