Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 185

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sex differences in the prevalence of human birth defects: A population‐based study

Lary, Joseph M., Paulozzi, Leonard J.·2001·Teratology

Abstract

Background: Sex differences in the prevalence of several human birth defects have often been reported in the literature, but the extent of sex differences for most birth defects is unknown. To determine the full extent of sex differences in birth defects in a population, we examined population‐based data from the Metropolitan Atlanta Congenital Defects Program (MACDP). Methods: MACDP records were analyzed for 1968 through 1995. We determined the sex‐specific prevalence of all major birth defects, using the total number of live births by sex during these years as the denominator. For each specific defect, we calculated a relative risk with regard to sex on the basis of the ratio of prevalence among males to prevalence among females. Male–female relative risks were also determined for total major birth defects and for several broad categories of defects. Results: The overall prevalence of major defects at birth was 3.9% among males and 2.8% among females. All but two of the major categories of birth defects (nervous system defects and endocrine system defects) had a higher prevalence among males. Defects of the sex organs were eight and one‐half times more prevalent among males and accounted for about half of the increased risk of birth defects among males relative to females. Urinary tract defects were 62% more prevalent among males, and gastrointestinal tract defects were 55% more prevalent among males. Among specific defect types, twofold or greater differences in prevalence by sex were common. Conclusions: Our data indicate that sex differences in the prevalence of specific human birth defects are common, and male infants are at greater risk for birth defects than female infants. Several mechanisms have been proposed to account for these differences. Teratology 64:237–251, 2001. Published 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/tera.1070

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 185

Metadata

Authors
Lary, J. M., & Paulozzi, L. J.
Venue
Teratology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-10-11
Volume
64
Issue
5
Pages
237-251
ISSN
  • 0040-3709 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9926
OpenAlex
W2116018445
Cited by
185
References
1
FWCI
5.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.