Adolescent Pregnancy Outcomes Among Sisters and Mothers: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study Using Linkable Administrative Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Female family members affect both the likelihood of adolescent pregnancy and the outcome of that pregnancy. We examined the degree to which an older sister's adolescent reproductive outcomes affect her younger sister's reproductive behavior, and whether relationships in adolescent pregnancy among sisters born to adolescent mothers differ from those born to nonadolescent mothers. METHODS: We followed a birth cohort in Manitoba, Ontario, Canada, to age 20 using linkable administrative databases housed at the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy. The cohort consisted of 12 391 girls born in Manitoba between April 1, 1984, and March 31, 1996, who had 1 older sister. We used logistic regression models to examine the relationships among familial adolescent pregnancy outcomes. RESULTS: Compared with adolescent girls whose older sister did not have an adolescent pregnancy, adolescent girls whose older sister had an adolescent pregnancy were more likely to have a pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.57), regardless of whether that pregnancy was completed (aOR = 2.56) or terminated (aOR = 2.59). Relationships in adolescent pregnancy among sisters were much stronger for those born to nonadolescent mothers (aOR = 3.16 [older sister completed adolescent pregnancy] and 3.18 [older sister terminated adolescent pregnancy]) than to adolescent mothers (aOR = 1.65 [older sister completed adolescent pregnancy] and 1.77 [older sister terminated adolescent pregnancy]). For younger sisters having an adolescent pregnancy, the odds of her completing the pregnancy were reduced if her older sister had terminated an adolescent pregnancy and her mother had not been an adolescent mother (aOR = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Younger sisters of adolescents who had a pregnancy may benefit from targeted interventions to reduce their likelihood of adolescent pregnancies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".