The association between alcohol outlet accessibility and adverse birth outcomes: A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alcohol outlet accessibility is positively associated with alcohol consumption, although this relationship has not been thoroughly examined in pregnant women. The present study examines the relationship between proximity and density of alcohol outlets and risk for low birth weight (LBW: <2,500 grams) and preterm birth (PTB: <37 weeks gestational age), and is the first Canadian study to investigate this association. METHODS: Maternal accessibility to alcohol outlets was specified using a gravity-type measure of accessibility, which provides the amount of accessibility that a given household has to liquor stores within 30-minutes of their home. All singleton newborns without congenital anomalies that were born between February 2009 and February 2014 at London Health Sciences Centre in London, Ontario, were included in this cohort. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 25,734 live births, of which 5.8% were LBW and 7.6% were PTB. Only 2.0% of women reported alcohol use during pregnancy. Alcohol outlet gravity was positively correlated with the percentage of mothers living in poverty (rs = 0.33, p < 0.001) and in single-parent families (rs = 0.39, p < 0.001), and who self-identify as visible minorities (rs = 0.45, p < 0.001). Alcohol outlet gravity increased the odds that mothers drank alcohol during pregnancy (OR 1.05; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.07), although the association was weak. Furthermore, alcohol outlet gravity did not increase the likelihood of a LBW or PTB infant. CONCLUSIONS: Women with high accessibility to alcohol outlets are more likely to consume alcohol during pregnancy, but greater alcohol outlet accessibility does not translate into poor birth outcomes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".