Constructing Normalcy and Discrepancy Indexes for Birth Weight and Gestational Age Using a Threshold Regression Mixture Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Birth weight and gestational age are important measures of a newborn's intrinsic health, serving both as outcome measures and explanatory variables in health studies. The measures are highly correlated but occasionally inconsistent. We anticipate that health researchers and other scientists would be helped by summary indexes of birth weight and gestational age that give more precise indications of whether the birth outcome is healthy or not. We propose a pair of indexes that we refer to as the birth normalcy index or BNI and birth discrepancy index or BDI. Both indexes are simple functions of birth weight and gestational age and in logarithmic form are orthogonal by construction. The BNI gauges whether the birth weight and gestational age combination are in a normal range. The BDI gauges whether birth weight and gestational age are consistent. We present a three-component mixture model for BNI, with the components representing premature, at-risk, and healthy births. The BNI distribution is derived from a stochastic model of fetal development proposed by Whitmore and Su (2007, Lifetime Data Analysis 13, 161-190) and takes the form of a mixture of inverse Gaussian distributions. We present a noncentral t-distribution as a model for BDI. BNI and BDI are also well suited for making comparisons of birth outcomes in different reference populations. A simple z-score and t-score are proposed for such comparisons. The BNI and BDI distributions can be estimated for births in any reference population of interest using threshold regression.
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 | 0.013 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".