MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3144183865 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(21)00094-2

Trends in missing females at birth in India from 1981 to 2016: analyses of 2·1 million birth histories in nationally representative surveys

2021· article· en· W3144183865 on OpenAlexafffund
Nandita Saikia, Catherine Meh, Usha Ram, Jayanta Kumar Bora, Bhaskar Mishra, Shailaja Chandra, Prabhat Jha

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Global Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsToronto Public HealthCentre for Global Health ResearchUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoCanada Research ChairsGovernment of Canada
KeywordsDemographyResidenceAbortionPopulationConfidence intervalOdds ratioSex ratioGeographyMissing dataMedicinePregnancyStatisticsMathematicsBiologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Half of the world's missing female births occur in India, due to sex-selective abortion. It is unknown whether selective abortion of female fetuses has changed in recent years across different birth orders. We sought to document the trends in missing female births, particularly among second and third children, at national and state levels. METHODS: We examined birth histories from five nationally representative household surveys (National Family Health Surveys 1-4 and District Level Household Survey 2) to compute the conditional sex ratio (defined as the number of girls born per 1000 boys depending on previous birth sex) in India during 1981-2016. We estimated decadal variation in conditional sex ratio for 1987-96, 1997-2006, and 2007-16, and quantified trends in the numbers of missing female births for the states constituting >95% of India's population, as well as in 5-year intervals for each survey round. We used multivariate logistic regression to calculate the odds ratio of a second (or third) girl depending on the sex of the earlier child (or children), adjusting for education, wealth, religion, caste, and place of residence. FINDINGS: We assessed 2·1 million birth histories across the five surveys. Applying the conditional sex ratios from the surveys to national births, we found that 13·5 million female births were missing during the three decades of observation (1987-2016), on the basis of a natural sex ratio of 950 girls per 1000 boys. Missing female births increased from 3·5 million in 1987-96 to 5·5 million in 2007-16. Contrasting the conditional sex ratio from the first decade of observation (1987-96) to the last (2007-16) showed worsening for the whole of India and almost all states, among both birth orders. Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat, and Rajasthan had the most skewed sex ratios, comprising nearly a third of the national totals of missing second-born and third-born females at birth. From about 1986, the conditional sex ratio for second-order or third-order births after an earlier daughter or daughters diverged notably from that after an earlier son or sons. From 1981 to 2016, the sex ratio for second-born children after an earlier daughter decreased from 930 (99% CI 869-990) to 885 (859-912), and that for third-born children after two earlier daughters decreased from 968 (866-1069) to 788 (746-830). The probability of missing girls was mostly determined by earlier daughters, even after considering wealth quintile and education levels. The conditional sex ratio among the richest and most educated mothers was most distorted compared with lower wealth and education groups, and generally decreased with time, until a modest improvement in 2007-16. INTERPRETATION: In contrast to the substantial improvements in female child mortality in India, missing female births, driven by selective abortion of female fetuses, continues to increase across the states. Inclusion of a question on sex composition of births in the forthcoming census would provide local information on sex-selective abortion in each village and urban area of the country. FUNDING: None. TRANSLATION: For the Hindi translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations39
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Global HealthSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207