| Title |
Gender Differences in Infant Mortality and Neonatal Morbidity in Mixed-Gender Twins
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1038/s41598-017-08951-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dongying Zhao, Lile Zou, Xiaoping Lei, Yongjun Zhang |
| Abstract |
In the present study, we aimed to explore gender differences in infant mortality and neonatal morbidity in mixed-gender twin pairs. Data were obtained from the US National Center for Health Statistics Linked Birth-Infant Death Cohort. A total of 108,038 pairs of mixed-gender twins were included in this analysis. Among the mixed-gender twins, no significant difference in the odds of fetal mortality between male twins (1.05%) and female co-twins (1.04%). However, male twins were at increased odds of neonatal mortality (adjusted OR 1.59; 95% CI 1.37, 1.85) and overall infant mortality (adjusted OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.27, 1.61) relative to their female co-twins. Congenital abnormalities (adjusted OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.27, 1.50) were identified significantly more frequently in male than female twins. Moreover, increased odds of having low 5-minute Apgar score (<7) (adjusted OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.05, 1.26), assistant ventilation >30 minutes (adjusted OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.17, 1.47), and respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.26, 1.66) were identified in male twins relative to their female counterparts. The results of our study indicated that in mixed-gender twin pairs, the odds of infant mortality and neonatal morbidity were higher in male twins than their female co-twins. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 103 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 6% |
| Researcher | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 18% |
| Unknown | 27 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 31 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,269,299
of 25,055,009 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#12,489
of 137,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,430
of 324,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#566
of 5,990 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,055,009 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 137,564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,460 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,990 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.