Are Early-Life Socioeconomic Conditions Directly Related to Birth Outcomes? Grandmaternal Education, Grandchild Birth Weight, and Associated Bias Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grandmaternal education may be related to grandchild birth weight (GBW) through maternal early-life development; however, conventional regression models may be endogenously confounded. Alternative models employing explicit structural assumptions may provide incrementally clearer evidence. We used data from the US National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (1995-2009; 1,681 mother-child pairs) to estimate "direct effects" of grandmaternal educational level (less than high school, high school diploma or equivalent, or college degree) at the time of the mother's birth on GBW, adjusted for maternal life-course factors: maltreatment as a child, education and income as an adult, prepregnancy overweight, and prenatal smoking. Using conventional and marginal structural model (MSM) approaches, we estimated 54-g (95% confidence interval: -14.0, 122.1) and 87-g (95% confidence interval: 10.9, 162.5) higher GBWs per increase in educational level, respectively. The MSM allowed simultaneous mediation by and adjustment for prepregnancy overweight. Estimates were insensitive to alternate structural assumptions and mediator parameterizations. Bias analysis suggested that a single unmeasured confounder would have to have a strong influence on GBW (approximately 150 g) or be greatly imbalanced across exposure groups (approximately 25%) to completely explain the findings. Coupling an MSM with sensitivity analyses provides some evidence that maternal early-life socioeconomic environment is directly associated with offspring birth weight.
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 | 0.088 | 0.167 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".