Teenage pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes: a large population based retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether the association between teenage pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes could be explained by deleterious social environment, inadequate prenatal care, or biological immaturity remains controversial. The objective of this study was to determine whether teenage pregnancy is associated with increased adverse birth outcomes independent of known confounding factors. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective cohort study of 3,886,364 nulliparous pregnant women <25 years of age with a live singleton birth during 1995 and 2000 in the United States. RESULTS: All teenage groups were associated with increased risks for pre-term delivery, low birth weight and neonatal mortality. Infants born to teenage mothers aged 17 or younger had a higher risk for low Apgar score at 5 min. Further adjustment for weight gain during pregnancy did not change the observed association. Restricting the analysis to white married mothers with age-appropriate education level, adequate prenatal care, without smoking and alcohol use during pregnancy yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Teenage pregnancy increases the risk of adverse birth outcomes that is independent of important known confounders. This finding challenges the accepted opinion that adverse birth outcome associated with teenage pregnancy is attributable to low socioeconomic status, inadequate prenatal care and inadequate weight gain during 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".