MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165236237 · doi:10.1093/aje/kwm327

The Missing Data Problem in Birth Weight Percentiles and Thresholds for "Small-for-Gestational-Age"

2008· article· en· W2165236237 on OpenAlex
Jennifer A. Hutcheon, Robert W. Platt

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Epidemiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPercentileGestational ageMissing dataMedicineSmall for gestational ageFetal weightBirth weightIn uteroFetal growthObstetricsFetusGestationPregnancyStatisticsMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Weight-for-gestational-age charts and definitions of "small-for-gestational-age" based on the distribution of livebirths at a given gestational age have conventionally been used to identify infants whose fetal growth is poor. However, references based on the weights of only livebirths have serious shortcomings at preterm ages due to missing data on the weights of fetuses still in utero, and these missing data introduce considerable bias to etiologic studies of fetal growth restriction. Application of standard epidemiologic approaches for missing data is needed to help produce perinatal weight percentiles that provide unbiased assessment of fetal growth and risks of small-for-gestational-age.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.242 · 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