The relationship between interpregnancy interval (IPI) and mother’s preceding pregnancies (PP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Following the investigation of the mother’s preceding pregnancies on fetal development and postnatal survival of the neonate, we turned our attention to an earlier period, that is the interval separating the onset of the current pregnancy from the end of the preceding one. The objectives of this study is to investigate the variations of interpregnancy interval length associated to the mother’s preceding pregnancies. Methods A population of 7773 neonates, alive at the time of hospital discharge, were divided into cohorts according to the current neonate’s sex and number and sex of the mother’s preceding pregnancies. Interpregnancy interval average of each cohort of same neonate’s sex and mother’s parity, but different configuration of preceding pregnancies, were measured and compared. Results A positive association was found between mother’s preceding pregnancies and length of interpregnancy interval when current pregnancy and preceding pregnancy were of the same sex, and a negative association when they were of opposite sex. Discussion Interpregnancy interval length follows a pattern regarding the gravida’s preceding pregnancy similar to the other early life indicators pattern, birth weight, placenta weight, gestation length and neonatal survival. Our results confirm and complete an immunological explanation of the indicators variations associated to the gravida’s preceding pregnancy.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".