MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214814464 · doi:10.1215/00703370-9779784

Competing Effects on the Average Age of Infant Death

2022· article· en· W4214814464 on OpenAlexaff
Monica Alexander, Leslie Root

Bibliographic record

VenueDemography · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsInfant mortalityDemographyMedicineFalling (accident)CohortProxy (statistics)Life tablePediatricsPopulationStatisticsEnvironmental healthMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent decades, the relationship between the average length of life for those who die in the first year of life-the life table quantity a10-and the level of infant mortality, on which its calculation is often based, has broken down. The very low levels of infant mortality in the developed world correspond to a range of a10 quantities. We illustrate the competing effect of falling mortality and reduction in preterm births on a10 through two populations with very different levels of premature birth-infants born to non-Hispanic White mothers and infants born to non-Hispanic Black mothers in the United States-using linked birth and infant death cohort data. Through simulation, we further demonstrate that falling mortality reduces a10, while a reduction in premature births increases it. We use these observations to motivate the formulation of a new approximation formula for a10 in low-mortality contexts, which aims to incorporate differences in preterm birth through a proxy measure-the ratio of infant to under-five mortality. Models are built and tested using data from the Human Mortality Database. Model results and validation show that the newly proposed model outperforms existing alternatives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDemographySame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207