MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113482210 · doi:10.2105/ajph.2004.043885

Stillbirths in the United States, 1981–2000: An Age, Period, and Cohort Analysis

2005· article· en· W2113482210 on OpenAlexaff
Cande V. Ananth, Shiliang Liu, Wendy Kinzler, Michael S. Kramer

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDemographyCohortCohort studyCohort effectConfoundingPregnancySingletonObstetricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: We examined age, period, and cohort (APC) effects on temporal trends in stillbirths among Black and White women in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of Black and White women who delivered a singleton live-born or stillborn infant during 1981 through 2000. We analyzed stillbirth rates at 20 or more weeks of gestation within 7 age groups, 4 periods, and 10 "central" birth cohorts after adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: In both racial groups, women younger than 20 years or 35 years or older were at increased risk of stillbirth; risks decreased over successive periods in all age groups. Birth cohort had no impact on stillbirth trends among Blacks and only a small, nonsignificant effect among Whites. Analyses of various APC combinations showed that Blacks were at a 1.2- to 2.9-fold increased risk for stillbirth relative to Whites. Attributable fractions for stillbirth because of age, period, and cohort effects were 16.5%, 24.9%, and 0.1%, respectively, among Black women and 14.5%, 36.2%, and 2.1%, respectively, among White women. CONCLUSIONS: Strong effects of age and period were observed in stillbirth trends, but these factors do not explain the persistent stillbirth disparity between Black and White women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Public HealthSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207