Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 446

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The preterm prediction study: the value of new vs standard risk factors in predicting early and all spontaneous preterm births. NICHD MFMU Network.

Open access
Goldenberg, R L, Iams, J D, Mercer, B M, Meis, P J, Moawad, A H, Copper, R L, Das, A, Thom, E, Johnson, F, McNellis, D, Miodovnik, M, Van Dorsten, J P, Caritis, S N, Thurnau, G R, Bottoms, S F·1998·American Journal of Public Health

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to determine the relationship between fetal fibronectin, short cervix, bacterial vaginosis, other traditional risk factors, and spontaneous preterm birth. METHODS: From 1992 through 1994, 2929 women were screened at the gestational age 22 to 24 weeks. RESULTS: The odds ratios for spontaneous preterm birth were highest for fetal fibronectin, followed by a short cervix and history of preterm birth. These factors, as well as bacterial vaginosis, were more strongly associated with early than with late spontaneous preterm birth. Bacterial vaginosis was more common--and a stronger predictor of spontaneous preterm birth--in Black women, while body mass index less than 19.8 was a stronger predictor in non-Black women. This analysis suggests a pathway leading from Black race through bacterial vaginosis and fetal fibronectin to spontaneous preterm birth. Prior preterm birth is associated with spontaneous preterm birth through a short cervix. CONCLUSIONS: Fetal fibronectin and a short cervix are stronger predictors of spontaneous preterm birth than traditional risk factors. Bacterial vaginosis was found more often in Black than in non-Black women and accounted for 40% of the attributable risk for spontaneous preterm birth at less than 32 weeks.

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 · 10.2105/ajph.88.2.233

Cites

3 of 3 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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 446

Metadata

Authors
Goldenberg, R. L., Iams, J. D., Mercer, B. M., Meis, P. J., Moawad, A. H., Copper, R. L., Das, A., Thom, E., Johnson, F., McNellis, D., Miodovnik, M., Van Dorsten, J. P., Caritis, S. N., Thurnau, G. R., & Bottoms, S. F.
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Published
1998-02
Volume
88
Issue
2
Pages
233-238
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
OpenAlex
W2061034329
Cited by
446
References
3
FWCI
18.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The preterm prediction study: the value of new vs standard risk factors in predicting early and all spontaneous preterm births. NICHD MFMU Network. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2105/ajph.88.2.233
The paper
Goldenberg, R. L., Iams, J. D., Mercer, B. M., Meis, P. J., Moawad, A. H., Copper, R. L., Das, A., Thom, E., Johnson, F., McNellis, D., Miodovnik, M., Van Dorsten, J. P., Caritis, S. N., Thurnau, G. R., & Bottoms, S. F. (1998). The preterm prediction study: the value of new vs standard risk factors in predicting early and all spontaneous preterm births. NICHD MFMU Network. American Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.88.2.233

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.