Adequacy of prenatal care and neonatal mortality in infants born to mothers with and without antenatal high‐risk conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have found that inadequate prenatal care was associated with increased neonatal mortality in the general pregnant women. AIMS: To examine the association between adequacy of prenatal care and neonatal mortality in the presence and absence of antenatal high-risk conditions. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of infants based on 1995-2000 vital statistics data in the USA. The relative risk for neonatal death associated with adequacy of prenatal care was estimated by multivariate logistic regressions with adjustment of confounding factors. RESULTS: Inadequate prenatal care was associated with increased neonatal mortality when pregnancies were complicated by anaemia, cardiac disease, lung disease, chronic hypertension, diabetes, renal disease, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and previous preterm/small-for-gestational-age birth. The observed association also existed in the absence of these antenatal high-risk conditions. Overutilisation of prenatal care was associated with increased risk of neonatal deaths in both the presence and the absence of antenatal high-risk conditions. When gestational age at delivery and birthweight were further adjusted, the observed association between inadequate prenatal care and neonatal mortality was not significant in pregnancies with various high-risk conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate prenatal care is associated with increased neonatal death in both the presence and the absence of antenatal high-risk conditions. The observed association between inadequate prenatal care and neonatal mortality may be mediated by increased risk of preterm delivery and low birthweight in these pregnancies. Overutilisation of prenatal care is associated with potential risks for fetal and neonatal development, leading to increased neonatal mortality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".