MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557511488 · doi:10.1002/oby.21621

Prepregnancy obesity and the racial disparity in infant mortality

2016· article· en· W2557511488 on OpenAlexaff
Lara Lemon, Ashley I. Naimi, Barbara Abrams, Jay S. Kaufman, Lisa M. Bodnar

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineInfant mortalityObesityObstetricsPopulationLive birthDemographyPregnancyPediatricsEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the extent to which prepregnancy obesity explains the Black-White disparity in stillbirth and infant mortality. METHODS: A population-based study of linked Pennsylvania birth-infant death certificates (2003-2011; n = 1,055,359 births) and fetal death certificates (2006-2011; n = 3,102 stillbirths) for all singleton pregnancies in non-Hispanic (NH) White and NH Black women was conducted. Inverse probability weighted regression was used to estimate the role of prepregnancy obesity in explaining the race-infant/fetal death association. RESULTS: ) and experienced a higher rate of stillbirth (8.3 vs. 3.6 stillbirths per 1,000 live-born and stillborn infants) and infant death (8.5 vs. 3.0 infant deaths per 1,000 live births). When the contribution of prepregnancy obesity was removed, the difference in risk between NH Blacks and NH Whites decreased from 6.2 (95% CI: 5.6-6.7) to 5.5 (95% CI: 4.9-6.2) excess stillbirths per 1,000 and 5.8 (95% CI: 5.3-6.3) to 5.2 (95% CI: 4.7-5.7) excess infant deaths per 1,000. CONCLUSIONS: For every 10,000 live births in Pennsylvania (2003-2011), 6 of the 61 excess infant deaths in NH Black women and 5 of the 44 excess stillbirths (2006-2011) were attributable to prepregnancy obesity.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObesitySame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207