Ethnic variations in risk of preterm birth in an ethnically dense socially disadvantaged area in the UK: a retrospective cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate ethnic variations in risk of preterm birth (PTB), including extreme preterm birth (EPTB) and moderately preterm birth (MPTB), among mothers in an ethnically dense, socially disadvantaged area, and to examine whether any variations were dependent of area deprivation and maternal biological and behavioural factors. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study using routinely collected data. SETTING: A large UK National Health Service maternity unit. PARTICIPANTS: 46 307 women who gave singleton births between April 2007 and March 2016. OUTCOME MEASURES: PTB defined as <37 weeks of gestation and further classified into EPTB (<28 weeks of gestation) and MPTB (28 to <37 weeks of gestation). RESULTS: Overall prevalence of PTB was higher (8.3%) compared with the national average (7.8%). Black Caribbean (2.2%) and black African (2.0%) mothers had higher absolute risk of EPTB than white British mothers (1.3%), particularly black Caribbean mothers whose relative risk ratio (RRR) was nearly twice after adjustment for all covariates (RRR=1.93[1.20 to 3.10]). Excess relative risk of EPTB among black African mothers became non-significant after adjustment for prenatal behavioural factors (RRR=1.41[0.99 to 2.01]). Bangladeshi mothers had the lowest absolute risk of EPTB (0.6%), substantially lower than white British mothers (1.3%); the difference in relative risk remained significant after adjustment for area deprivation (RRR=0.59[0.36 to 0.96]), but became non-significant after adjustment for maternal biological factors. Changes were evident in the relative risk of EPTB and MPTB among some ethnic groups compared with the white British on adjustment for different covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Higher than national rates of PTB point to the need for evidence-based antenatal and neonatal care programmes to support preterm babies and their families in ethnically dense socially disadvantaged areas. Differential impact of area deprivation and the role of modifiable behavioural factors highlight the need for targeted preventive interventions for groups at risk.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".