MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392247804 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(23)01198-4

National, regional, and global estimates of low birthweight in 2020, with trends from 2000: a systematic analysis

2024· article· en· W4392247804 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yemisrach B. Okwaraji, Julia Krasevec, Ellen Bradley, Joel Conkle, Gretchen A Stevens, Giovanna Gatica‐Domínguez, Eric O. Ohuma, Christopher S. Coffey, Hannah Blencowe, Ben Kimathi, Ann‐Beth Moller, Alex Lewin, Laith Hussain‐Alkhateeb, Nita Dalmiya, Joy E Lawn, Elaine Borghi, Chika Hayashi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchool of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong UniversityMedical Research CouncilHospital for Sick ChildrenGöteborgs UniversitetUniversity of WashingtonShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleUniversity of PretoriaSouth African Medical Research CouncilChildren's Investment Fund FoundationUNICEFBill and Melinda Gates FoundationJohns Hopkins UniversityWorld Health OrganizationKhon Kaen University
KeywordsGeographyRegional scienceDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Low birthweight (LBW; <2500 g) is an important predictor of health outcomes throughout the life course. We aimed to update country, regional, and global estimates of LBW prevalence for 2020, with trends from 2000, to assess progress towards global targets to reduce LBW by 30% by 2030. METHODS: For this systematic analysis, we searched population-based, nationally representative data on LBW from Jan 1, 2000, to Dec 31, 2020. Using 2042 administrative and survey datapoints from 158 countries and areas, we developed a Bayesian hierarchical regression model incorporating country-specific intercepts, time-varying covariates, non-linear time trends, and bias adjustments based on data quality. We also provided novel estimates by birthweight subgroups. FINDINGS: An estimated 19·8 million (95% credible interval 18·4-21·7 million) or 14·7% (13·7-16·1) of liveborn newborns were LBW worldwide in 2020, compared with 22·1 million (20·7-23·9 million) and 16·6% (15·5-17·9) in 2000-an absolute reduction of 1·9 percentage points between 2000 and 2020. Using 2012 as the baseline, as this is when the Global Nutrition Target began, the estimated average annual rate of reduction from 2012 to 2020 was 0·3% worldwide, 0·85% in southern Asia, and 0·59% in sub-Saharan Africa. Nearly three-quarters of LBW births in 2020 occurred in these two regions: of 19 833 900 estimated LBW births worldwide, 8 817 000 (44·5%) were in southern Asia and 5 381 300 (27·1%) were in sub-Saharan Africa. Of 945 300 estimated LBW births in northern America, Australia and New Zealand, central Asia, and Europe, approximately 35·0% (323 700) weighed less than 2000 g: 5·8% (95% CI 5·2-6·4; 54 800 [95% CI 49 400-60 800]) weighed less than 1000 g, 9·0% (8·7-9·4; 85 400 [82 000-88 900]) weighed between 1000 g and 1499 g, and 19·4% (19·0-19·8; 183 500 [180 000-187 000]) weighed between 1500 g and 1999 g. INTERPRETATION: Insufficient progress has occurred over the past two decades to meet the Global Nutrition Target of a 30% reduction in LBW between 2012 and 2030. Accelerating progress requires investments throughout the lifecycle focused on primary prevention, especially for adolescent girls and women living in the most affected countries. With increasing numbers of births in facilities and advancing electronic information systems, improvements in the quality and availability of administrative LBW data are also achievable. FUNDING: The Children's Investment Fund Foundation; the UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction; and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.007
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations149
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicMaternal and Neonatal HealthcareFrench-language works237,207