A prospective cohort study of pregnancy risk factors and birth outcomes in Aboriginal women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aboriginal women have been identified as having poorer pregnancy outcomes than other Canadian women, but information on risk factors and outcomes has been acquired mostly from retrospective databases. We compared prenatal risk factors and birth outcomes of First Nations and Métis women with those of other participants in a prospective study. METHODS: During the 12-month period from July 1994 to June 1995, we invited expectant mothers in all obstetric practices affiliated with a single teaching hospital in Edmonton to participate. Women were recruited at their first prenatal visit and followed through delivery. Sociodemographic and clinical data were obtained by means of a patient questionnaire, and microbiological data were collected at 3 points during gestation: in the first and second trimesters and during labour. Our primary outcomes of interest were low birth weight (birth weight less than 2500 g), prematurity (birth at less than 37 weeks' gestation) and macrosomia (birth weight greater than 4000 g). RESULTS: Of the 2047 women consecutively enrolled, 1811 completed the study through delivery. Aboriginal women accounted for 70 (3.9%) of the subjects who completed the study (45 First Nations women and 25 Métis women). Known risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcome were more common among Aboriginal than among non-Aboriginal women, including previous premature infant (21% v. 11%), smoking during the current pregnancy (41% v. 13%), presence of bacterial vaginosis in midgestation (33% v. 13%) and poor nutrition as measured by meal consumption. Although Aboriginal women were less likely than non-Aboriginal women to have babies of low birth weight (odds ratio [OR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-4.15) or who were born prematurely (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.57-3.72) and more likely to have babies with macrosomia (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.03-4.03), these differences were lower and statistically nonsignificant after adjustment for smoking, cervicovaginal infection and income (adjusted OR for low birth weight 0.85, 95% CI 0.19-3.78; for prematurity 0.90, 95% CI 0.21-3.89; and for macrosomia 2.12, 95% CI 0.84-5.36). INTERPRETATION: After adjustment for potential confounding factors, we found no statistically significant relation between Aboriginal status and birth outcome.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".