MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391748711 · doi:10.1017/thg.2024.5

Trends in Twin Births and Survival in Bangladesh: An Analysis of Half a Century of Evidence

2024· article· en· W4391748711 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kazi Zubair Hossain, Iftekhar Hasan

Bibliographic record

VenueTwin Research and Human Genetics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemographySingletonParity (physics)Infant mortalityQuarter (Canadian coin)MedicineMultiple birthLive birthPregnancyPopulationGeographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed the trends in twin births and their survival in Bangladesh by analyzing over a quarter million live births during 1970-2018, pooled from all eight rounds of the Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey. In these five decades, the twinning rate increased by 1.5 times, from 5.8 to 8.6 twins per 1000 maternities. The decadal twinning rates varied across maternal age, parity, body mass index, household wealth index, and geographic region. The gap in decadal neonatal, infant, and under-five cumulative survival probability between singleton and multiple births was found to be closing, using Kaplan-Meier curves. Child mortality decreased by 80% and 60% in singleton and multiple births respectively. However, the absolute size of child mortality in multiple births remained six times higher than in singletons and was concentrated in the neonatal period. The share of multiple births surged in all types of child mortality. We predict a further and faster rise in multiple births in the coming decades in the face of upward trends in maternal age overlapping with higher parities, education, career prospects, contraceptive use, and the future demand-supply of assisted reproductive technology. A particular focus on the improvement of perinatal and neonatal care with wider availability is warranted. Otherwise, increased multiple births might raise child mortality and create public health challenges.

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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTwin Research and Human GeneticsSame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207