Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 6,444

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

·2007·Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics

Abstract

Objectives. We evaluated whether the decline of the racial disparity in preterm birth during the last decade was commensurate with a decline in the contribution of preterm birth to the infant mortality gap. Methods. We used linked files of 1990 and 2000 data on US infant births and deaths to partition the gap between Black and White infant mortality rates into differences in the (1) distribution of gestational age and (2) gestational age–spe-cific mortality rates. Results. Between 1990 and 2000, the Black–White infant mortality rate ratio did not change significantly (2.3 vs 2.4). Excess deaths among preterm Black in-fants accounted for nearly 80 % of the Black–White infant mortality gap in both 1990 and 2000. The narrowing racial disparity in the preterm birth rate was coun-terbalanced by greater mortality reductions in White than in Black preterm in-fants. Extremely preterm birth (<28 weeks) was 4 times higher in Black infants and accounted for more than half of the infant mortality gap. Conclusions. Substantial reductions in the Black–White infant mortality gap will require improved prevention of extremely preterm birth among Black in-

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 · 10.4135/9781412952644.n74

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

See all 6,444

Metadata

Venue
Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics
Published
2007
OpenAlex
W2183446018
Cited by
6,444
References
0
Type
reference entry
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

How to cite

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

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4135/9781412952644.n74
The paper
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412952644.n74

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.