MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417451439 · doi:10.1215/00703370-12354082

Severe Tornadoes and Infant Birth Weight in the United States

2025· article· en· W4417451439 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas D. E. Mark, Ethan J. Raker, Gerard Torrats‐Espinosa

Bibliographic record

VenueDemography · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
KeywordsTornadoPopulationBirth weightSingletonLow birth weightLive birthNatural disaster

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing evidence links exposure to extreme weather events in utero with adverse health outcomes at birth, including lower birth weight. This research, however, often faces data limitations because natural disasters may be localized, often affecting some neighborhoods but not others, whereas outcome data are often available only at higher geographic levels, such as counties. In this article, we introduce a novel strategy for estimating the effects of geographically bounded disasters when localized outcome data are unavailable. We employ this strategy to estimate the effect of exposure to severe tornadoes on infant birth weight in the United States from 1991 to 2017. We merge county-month data on singleton births with block-group-level monthly data on the paths of severe tornadoes and block-group data on the distribution of the population at risk of a birth. We then estimate difference-in-differences models in which the treatment variable is equal to the percentage of the population at risk of a birth affected by the tornado. This strategy results in an estimand that is both more interpretable and more policy-relevant than estimands from traditional models. Our findings demonstrate that exposure to a tornado during pregnancy reduced birth weight for Black mothers.

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)0.000
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 score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDemographySame topicAgricultural risk and resilienceFrench-language works237,207