Birth Month and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Association: Is meaningfulness in the eye of the beholder?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the modern era, with high-throughput technology and large data size, associational studies are actively being generated. Some have statistical and clinical validity and utility, or at least have biologically plausible relationships, while others may not. Recently, the potential effect of birth month on lifetime disease risks has been studied in a phenome-wide model. We evaluated the associations between birth month and 5 cardiovascular disease-related outcomes in an independent registry of 8,346 patients from Ontario, Canada in 1977-2014. We used descriptive statistics and logistic regression, along with model-fit and discrimination statistics. Hypertension and coronary heart disease (of primary interest) were most prevalent in those who were born in January and April, respectively, as observed in the previous study. Other outcomes showed weak or opposite associations. Ancillary analyses (based on raw blood pressures and subgroup analyses by sex) demonstrated inconsistent patterns and high randomness. Our study was based on a high risk population and could not provide scientific explanations. As scientific values and clinical implications can be different, readers are encouraged to read the original and our papers together for more objective interpretations of the potential impact of birth month on individual and public health as well as toward cumulative/total evidence in general.
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 | 0.118 | 0.376 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".