MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173208452 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138562

Disparities and Trends in Birth Outcomes, Perinatal and Infant Mortality in Aboriginal vs. Non-Aboriginal Populations: A Population-Based Study in Quebec, Canada 1996–2010

2015· article· en· W2173208452 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lu Chen, Lin Xiao, Nathalie Auger, Jill Torrie, Nancy Gros-Louis McHugh, Hamado Zoungrana, Zhong‐Cheng Luo

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsNunavik Regional Board of Health and Social ServicesFirst Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services CommissionInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecCree Board of Health and Social Services of James BayUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCree Board of Health and Social Services of James Bay
KeywordsMedicineInfant mortalityDemographyPopulationGestational ageBirth weightLow birth weightResidenceRetrospective cohort studyCohort studyMortality ratePediatricsPregnancyObstetricsEnvironmental healthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Aboriginal populations are at substantially higher risks of adverse birth outcomes, perinatal and infant mortality than their non-Aboriginal counterparts even in developed countries including Australia, U.S. and Canada. There is a lack of data on recent trends in Canada. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study (n = 254,410) using the linked vital events registry databases for singleton births in Quebec 1996-2010. Aboriginal (First Nations, Inuit) births were identified by mother tongue, place of residence and Indian Registration System membership. Outcomes included preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age, large-for-gestational-age, low birth weight, high birth weight, stillbirth, neonatal death, postneonatal death, perinatal death and infant death. RESULTS: Perinatal and infant mortality rates were 1.47 and 1.80 times higher in First Nations (10.1 and 7.3 per 1000, respectively), and 2.37 and 4.46 times higher in Inuit (16.3 and 18.1 per 1000, respectively) relative to non-Aboriginal (6.9 and 4.1 per 1000, respectively) births (all p<0.001). Compared to non-Aboriginal births, preterm birth rates were persistently (1.7-1.8 times) higher in Inuit, large-for-gestational-age birth rates were persistently (2.7-3.0 times) higher in First Nations births over the study period. Between 1996-2000 and 2006-2010, as compared to non-Aboriginal infants, the relative risk disparities increased for infant mortality (from 4.10 to 5.19 times) in Inuit, and for postneonatal mortality in Inuit (from 6.97 to 12.33 times) or First Nations (from 3.76 to 4.25 times) infants. Adjusting for maternal characteristics (age, marital status, parity, education and rural vs. urban residence) attenuated the risk differences, but significantly elevated risks remained in both Inuit and First Nations births for the risks of perinatal mortality (1.70 and 1.28 times, respectively), infant mortality (3.66 and 1.47 times, respectively) and postneonatal mortality (6.01 and 2.28 times, respectively) in Inuit and First Nations infants (all p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Aboriginal vs. non-Aboriginal disparities in adverse birth outcomes, perinatal and infant mortality are persistent or worsening over the recent decade in Quebec, strongly suggesting the needs for interventions to improve perinatal and infant health in Aboriginal populations, and for monitoring the trends in other regions in Canada.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207