Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,027

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Cohort profile: The Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study (MoBa)

Magnus, Per, Irgens, Lorentz M, Haug, Kjell, Nystad, Wenche, Skjærven, Rolv, Stoltenberg, Camilla·2006·International Journal of Epidemiology
DOI 10.1093/ije/dyl170
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study (MoBa) was planned in the 1990s partly by researchers at the Medical Birth Registry of Norway (MBRN)1 and partly by researchers at the National Institute of Public Health (from 2002 comprising MBRN as well as other institutions and renamed the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH). The study had a long planning phase involving many scientists who contributed ideas that helped to design questionnaires and to structure the biobank, which is described in detail elsewhere.2 Collaboration was established with the Danish Birth Cohort Study,3 which was planned in parallel with MoBa. In 1997, a pilot study was undertaken, recruiting pregnant women at their first visit to their general practitioner. However, the main study did not implement this data collection method owing to protests made by a group of general practitioners who argued against the scientific value of the study and suggested that women would be unduly worried by its focus on risks of disease. As a consequence of the protests, the Parliament Social Committee ordered the Ministry of Health to abandon further planning until these issues had been reviewed. After the review by the Committee in 1998, Parliament voted in favour of the study. The government provided seed money. The NIPH decided to commence the study on a small scale and expand as funds became available. The total cost during the recruitment period (1999–2008) has been estimated at ∼45 million dollars. Roughly two-thirds of the funding comes directly from the Ministry of Health and the NIPH. The Research Council of Norway decided early on that it would not support basic data collection but has supported DNA extraction through a programme on functional genomics. The remaining funds have been derived from national and international (National Institutes of Health, USA and integrated projects within the Frameworks for Research in the European Union) funding based on research collaboration. However, the data collection has yet to be completely funded. Sub-projects requiring additional data collection must have separate funding.

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 · 10.1093/ije/dyl170

Cites

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Magnus, P., Irgens, L. M., Haug, K., Nystad, W., Skjærven, R., & Stoltenberg, C.
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2006-08-22
Volume
35
Issue
5
Pages
1146-1150
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
DOI
10.1093/ije/dyl170
OpenAlex
W2163233985
Cited by
1,027
References
0
FWCI
22.42
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.