Intergenerational abortion tendency between mothers and teenage daughters: a population-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A teenage woman's sexual health practices may be influenced by her mother's experience. We evaluated whether there is an intergenerational tendency for induced abortion between mothers and their teenage daughters. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study involving daughters born in Ontario between 1992 and 1999. We evaluated the daughters' data for induced abortions between age 12 years and their 20th birthday. We assessed each mother's history of induced abortion for the period from 4 years before her daughter's birth to 12 years after (i.e., when her daughter turned 12 years of age). We used Cox proportional hazard models to estimate a daughter's risk of having an induced abortion in relation to the mother's history of the same procedure. We adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for maternal age and world region of origin, mental or physical health problems in the daughter, mother- daughter cohabitation, neighbourhood-level rate of teen induced abortion, rural or urban residence, and income quintile. RESULTS: A total of 431 623 daughters were included in the analysis. The cumulative probability of teen induced abortion was 10.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.8%-10.4%) among daughters whose mother had an induced abortion, and 4.2% (95% CI 4.1%-4.3%) among daughters whose mother had no induced abortion, for an adjusted HR of 1.94 (95% CI 1.86-2.01). The adjusted HR of a teenaged daughter having an induced abortion in relation to number of maternal induced abortions was 1.77 (95% CI 1.69-1.85) with 1 maternal abortion, 2.04 (95% CI 1.91-2.18) with 2 maternal abortions, 2.39 (95% CI 2.19-2.62) with 3 maternal abortions and 2.54 (95% CI 2.33-2.77) with 4 or more maternal abortions, relative to none. INTERPRETATION: We found that the risk of teen induced abortion was higher among daughters whose mother had had an induced abortion. Future research should explore the mechanisms for intergenerational induced abortion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".