Ramadan exposure during early pregnancy and risk of stillbirth in Arab women living in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data on fasting during Ramadan and the risk of preterm birth and child mortality are conflicting, but the association with stillbirth is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We studied the relationship between Ramadan and the risk of stillbirth for Arab women in Quebec, Canada. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using birth certificates for Arab women in Quebec, Canada, between 1981 and 2017. The exposure was Ramadan in the first and second trimester (1-27 weeks of gestation), and the outcome was early (<28 weeks) or late (≥28 weeks) stillbirth. We used log-binomial regression models to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between Ramadan and risk of stillbirth. We adjusted models for maternal characteristics and assessed associations by cause of death. RESULTS: The study included 78,349 live births and 274 stillbirths. There were 3.5 stillbirths per 1,000 pregnancies for women exposed to Ramadan between weeks 1-27 of gestation (95% CI 3.0, 4.0), and 3.4 per 1,000 for unexposed women (95% CI 2.8, 4.1). Compared with no exposure, Ramadan between weeks 1-27 was not associated with the risk of early (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.76, 2.28) or late stillbirth (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.70, 1.23) in adjusted models. RRs for early stillbirth were 1.40 for Ramadan between weeks 15-21 (95% CI 0.70, 2.80) and 1.38 for Ramadan between weeks 22-27 (95% CI 0.67, 2.84). Relative to no exposure, Ramadan between weeks 15-21 was associated with early stillbirth due to congenital anomaly (RR 3.96; 95% CI 1.35, 11.57) in unadjusted models. There was no association with other causes of stillbirth. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that Ramadan is associated with the risk of early or late stillbirth overall. Further research is needed to confirm an association with stillbirth due to congenital anomalies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".