MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2506078987 · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.9635

Temporal Trends in Late Preterm and Early Term Birth Rates in 6 High-Income Countries in North America and Europe and Association With Clinician-Initiated Obstetric Interventions

2016· article· en· W2506078987 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer L. Richards, Michael S. Kramer, Paromita Deb‐Rinker, Jocelyn Rouleau, Laust Hvas Mortensen, Mika Gissler, Nils‐Halvdan Morken, Rolv Skjærven, Sven Cnattingius, Stefan Johansson, Marie Delnord, Siobhan M. Dolan, Naho Morisaki, Suzanne Tough, Jennifer Zeitlin, Michael R. Kramer

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPreterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryPublic Health Agency of CanadaMcGill University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNational Institutes of HealthInstituto DanoneUniversité Paris DescartesJapan Agency for Medical Research and DevelopmentNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentUehara Memorial FoundationDanone
KeywordsMedicineHigh income countriesPsychological interventionTerm (time)DemographyAssociation (psychology)Birth rateEnvironmental healthPediatricsDeveloping countryEconomic growthFertilityPsychiatryPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Clinicians have been urged to delay the use of obstetric interventions (eg, labor induction, cesarean delivery) until 39 weeks or later in the absence of maternal or fetal indications for intervention. OBJECTIVE: To describe recent trends in late preterm and early term birth rates in 6 high-income countries and assess association with use of clinician-initiated obstetric interventions. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of singleton live births from 2006 to the latest available year (ranging from 2010 to 2015) in Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the United States. EXPOSURES: Use of clinician-initiated obstetric intervention (either labor induction or prelabor cesarean delivery) during delivery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Annual country-specific late preterm (34-36 weeks) and early term (37-38 weeks) birth rates. RESULTS: The study population included 2,415,432 Canadian births in 2006-2014 (4.8% late preterm; 25.3% early term); 305,947 Danish births in 2006-2010 (3.6% late preterm; 18.8% early term); 571,937 Finnish births in 2006-2015 (3.3% late preterm; 16.8% early term); 468,954 Norwegian births in 2006-2013 (3.8% late preterm; 17.2% early term); 737,754 Swedish births in 2006-2012 (3.6% late preterm; 18.7% early term); and 25,788,558 US births in 2006-2014 (6.0% late preterm; 26.9% early term). Late preterm birth rates decreased in Norway (3.9% to 3.5%) and the United States (6.8% to 5.7%). Early term birth rates decreased in Norway (17.6% to 16.8%), Sweden (19.4% to 18.5%), and the United States (30.2% to 24.4%). In the United States, early term birth rates decreased from 33.0% in 2006 to 21.1% in 2014 among births with clinician-initiated obstetric intervention, and from 29.7% in 2006 to 27.1% in 2014 among births without clinician-initiated obstetric intervention. Rates of clinician-initiated obstetric intervention increased among late preterm births in Canada (28.0% to 37.9%), Denmark (22.2% to 25.0%), and Finland (25.1% to 38.5%), and among early term births in Denmark (38.4% to 43.8%) and Finland (29.8% to 40.1%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Between 2006 and 2014, late preterm and early term birth rates decreased in the United States, and an association was observed between early term birth rates and decreasing clinician-initiated obstetric interventions. Late preterm births also decreased in Norway, and early term births decreased in Norway and Sweden. Clinician-initiated obstetric interventions increased in some countries but no association was found with rates of late preterm or early term birth.

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)0.003
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 score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations109
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicPreterm Birth and ChorioamnionitisFrench-language works237,207