MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389741698 · doi:10.1177/00099228231218162

National SIDS Trends in the United States From 2000 to 2019: A Population-Based Study on 80 Million Live Births

2023· article· en· W4389741698 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan S. Huang, Andrea R. Spence, Haim A. Abenhaim

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pediatrics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSudden infant death syndromeDemographyIncidence (geometry)PopulationConfidence intervalDisease controlInfant mortalityPediatricsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is the most common cause of death for infants between 1 month and 1 year of age in the United States. The objective was to examine recent trends in SIDS in the United States, over time and by sex and race. A population-based cross-sectional study was conducted on 80 710 348 live births using data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) "Birth Data" and "Mortality Multiple Cause" files from 2000 to 2019. Logistic regression examined the effects of sex and race on the risk of SIDS and examined temporal changes in risk across sex and race over the study period. Incidence of SIDS decreased from 6.3 to 3.4/10 000 births from 2000 to 2019, with an overall incidence of 4.9/10 000 births (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.4-5.3). Male infants were at the greatest risk of SIDS as were black and American Indian infants. Although SIDS incidence decreased by sex and race over time, the decline was smaller among Hispanic and American Indian infants.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical PediatricsSame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207