The Influence of a Male Twin on Birthweight of its Female Co-twin — A Population-based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fetal growth is influenced by various determinants, with males being heavier than females. It was recently suggested that female birthweight tends to be increased by the presence of a male co-twin. We evaluated this hypothesis in the Israeli population. We reviewed a retrospective population database of the 1993-1998 Israeli Birth Registry. We compared male birthweight in the male-male and male-female combination sets and female birthweight in the female-female and male-female combination sets. We compared the mean birthweight of males and females in three groups of total twin birthweight. The sample of 12,686 sets included 50.6% males. The male-male combination was found in 31.3% sets, female-female in 38.7% and unlike-sex combination in 30.0%. A total twin birthweight of less than 3000g was found in 7.2% sets, of 3001-5000g in 50.7% sets, and of over 5000g in 42.1% sets. The mean male birthweight was 2398 +/- 602 g and the mean female birthweight was 2316 +/- 566g, p <.0001 (95% CI of 67, 96). The mean birthweight of males in the male-male combination was significantly lower than in the unlike-sex combination, p <.0001, in total birthweights over 3000g. No significant difference was found between the mean birthweight of females in the female-female and in the unlike-sex combinations in all total birthweight strata. Our findings do not substantiate a male-related inter-twin influence on female birthweight. Population differences might underlie the opposing observations in the literature.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".