MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404874670 · doi:10.1186/s12911-024-02783-x

Exploring parental factors influencing low birth weight on the 2022 CDC natality dataset

2024· article· en· W4404874670 on OpenAlexaff
Sumaiya Sultana Dola, Camilo E. Valderrama

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthropometryDemographySocioeconomic statusLow birth weightEthnic groupPregnancyBirth weightLogistic regressionOdds ratioPrenatal careOddsMedicinePopulationEnvironmental healthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Low birth weight (LBW), known as the condition of a newborn weighing less than 2500 g, is a growing concern in the United States (US). Previous studies have identified several contributing factors, but many have analyzed these variables in isolation, limiting their ability to capture the combined influence of multiple factors. Moreover, past research has predominantly focused on maternal health, demographics, and socioeconomic conditions, often neglecting paternal factors such as age, educational level, and ethnicity. Additionally, most studies have utilized localized datasets, which may not reflect the diversity of the US population. To address these gaps, this study leverages machine learning to analyze the 2022 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Natality Dataset, identifying the most significant factors contributing to LBW across the US. METHODS: We combined anthropometric, socioeconomic, maternal, and paternal factors to train logistic regression, random forest, XGBoost, conditional inference tree, and attention mechanism models to predict LBW and normal birth weight (NBW) outcomes. These models were interpreted using odds ratio analysis, feature importance, partial dependence plots (PDP), and Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) to identify the factors most strongly associated with LBW. RESULTS: Across all five models, the most consistently associated factors with birth weight were maternal height, pre-pregnancy weight, weight gain during pregnancy, and parental ethnicity. Other pregnancy-related factors, such as prenatal visits and avoiding smoking, also significantly influenced birth weight. CONCLUSION: The relevance of maternal anthropometric factors, pregnancy weight gain, and parental ethnicity can help explain the current differences in LBW and NBW rates among various ethnic groups in the US. Ethnicities with shorter average statures, such as Asians and Hispanics, are more likely to have newborns below the World Health Organization's 2500-gram threshold. Additionally, ethnic groups with historical challenges in accessing nutrition and perinatal care face a higher risk of delivering LBW 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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Informatics and Decision MakingSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207