MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2803307507 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxy054.010

DATA LINKAGE FOR EVALUATING MATERNAL INFLUENCES ON INFANT MORTALITY AND MALTREATMENT IN CANADA

2018· article· en· W2803307507 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer Smith, Astrid Guttmann, Alexander Kopp, Michelle Shouldice, Katie Harron

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralPopulationPublic healthChild abusePoison controlDemographyInjury preventionPediatricsEnvironmental healthFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND A number of social risk factors are reported to increase infant mortality rates and child maltreatment. Public health programs attempt to mitigate risk factors and improve outcomes for infants. This study aimed to explore the association of exposure factors in mothers with infant mortality and maltreatment in Ontario. OBJECTIVES Objectives for this study included: 1. Describe prevalence of infant mortality and maltreatment in Ontario. 2. Explore how maternal risk factors influence infant mortality and maltreatment. DESIGN/METHODS This was a population-based study of 845, 567 infants born between April 1, 2005 and March 31, 2015 using administrative and healthcare databases available at the Institute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES). Maternal risk factors were selected based on public health home visiting referral criteria. These exposures included, maternal adversity (substance abuse, intimate partner violence, homelessness), newcomer status (new to Canada in past 3 years) and young maternal age (less than 22 years of age). The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality of infants less than 12 months age. The secondary outcome measures were combined fatal and non-fatal child maltreatment outcomes and were defined using International Classification of Diseases for maltreatment diagnoses. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were described. The association between maternal risk factors and infant mortality and maltreatment was analysed using multivariable logistic modelling, including analysis by type of maternal risk factors and number of risk factors. RESULTS All-cause deaths were present in 0.14% and combined fatal and non-fatal maltreatment outcomes were present in 0.05% of the study population. Young maternal age increased the risk of all-cause mortality 2.4 times (n 171, OR 2.4, 95% CI 2.0–3.0) and maltreatment 6.3 times (n 292, OR 6.3, 95% CI 5.0–7.8). Mental health diagnosis increased the odds of maltreatment by 90% (n 209, OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.5–2.4). Adversity increased the odds of maltreatment by 63% (n 40, OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.0–2.6). The risk of maltreatment also increased as the number of risk factors increased with an OR of 3.5 (95% CI 2.9–4.4) with one risk factor, an OR of 8.2 (95% CI 5.9–11.4) with two risk factors, and an OR of 10.9 (95% CI 5.7 20.7) with three or more risk factors. Newcomer status was not associated with increased risk of maltreatment and mortality. Gestational age showed increasing ORs as prematurity increased. Material deprivation was included as a covariate and was associated with increased risk of maltreatment with increased level of deprivation. CONCLUSION Young maternal age carried the greatest risk of death and maltreatment in infants. There was also an increasing risk of infant mortality and maltreatment with increasing number of risk factors. These findings are important for ensuring public health interventions are targeting the most vulnerable populations with the aim of preventing maltreatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.072
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.226
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0720.226
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0160.039
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicHomelessness and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→