Exploring parental factors influencing low birth weight on the 2022 CDC natality dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".