Vulnerable newborn types: Analysis of population‐based registries for 165 million births in 23 countries, 2000–2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of novel newborn types among 165 million live births in 23 countries from 2000 to 2021. DESIGN: Population-based, multi-country analysis. SETTING: National data systems in 23 middle- and high-income countries. POPULATION: Liveborn infants. METHODS: Country teams with high-quality data were invited to be part of the Vulnerable Newborn Measurement Collaboration. We classified live births by six newborn types based on gestational age information (preterm <37 weeks versus term ≥37 weeks) and size for gestational age defined as small (SGA, <10th centile), appropriate (10th-90th centiles), or large (LGA, >90th centile) for gestational age, according to INTERGROWTH-21st standards. We considered small newborn types of any combination of preterm or SGA, and term + LGA was considered large. Time trends were analysed using 3-year moving averages for small and large types. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of six newborn types. RESULTS: We analysed 165 017 419 live births and the median prevalence of small types was 11.7% - highest in Malaysia (26%) and Qatar (15.7%). Overall, 18.1% of newborns were large (term + LGA) and was highest in Estonia 28.8% and Denmark 25.9%. Time trends of small and large infants were relatively stable in most countries. CONCLUSIONS: The distribution of newborn types varies across the 23 middle- and high-income countries. Small newborn types were highest in west Asian countries and large types were highest in Europe. To better understand the global patterns of these novel newborn types, more information is needed, especially from low- and middle-income countries.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".