1. clock
  2. Seasonality of Pre-term Births

Seasonality of Pre-term Births

By clock on February 6, 2007.

Matt found a conference paper that shows that the risk of pre-term birth is the lowest in spring, rising through summer and fall and the greatest in winter.

The paper, IMHO erroneously, focuses on the time of conception (because it is an easy marker used to calculate the supposed birth-date). Matt correctly shifts the discussion to the time of birth. After all, pre-term births are much more likely to be caused by something happening around that time than anything at the time of conception.

On the other hand, Matt, though cautiously and almost tongue-in-cheek, makes an attempt at an adaptive explanation. To do this, he had to consider not just the time of birth but also the duration of pregnancy which brings us back to the consideration of the time of fertilization.

I don't think there is an adaptive explanation (Matt thinks so, too, but tries to come up with one anyway). Pre-term births are not healthy shorter pregnancies. They are pathological events. I don't think that natural selection works on preserving pathological events.

Both in the primitive state, and in today's modern society, winter is the most stressful time of year (remember that silly formula for January 20-something being the most stressful day of the year?). Spring is the best time of year: people are coming out of their Winter Blues (or even full-fledged SAD), there is an abundance of food and it is not as hot and scorched-earth yet. The timing of birth is determined by the fetus, not the mother, but the fetus will often respond to the perceived stress of the mother.

Out of the left field: Perhaps the increase of pre-term births in industrial societies (compared to developing world and/or the past times) has something to do with Christmas and its commercialization!

Tags
medicine
Rhythmic Human

More like this

Study: Preterm birth price tag related to air pollution tops $5 billion

In debates over air pollution control, it’s always a tug-of-war between the cost to business and the cost to public health.

A boatload of fail: Were two horrendously bad zombie "vaxed/antivaxed" studies retracted—again?

[Editorial update: I woke up this morning to find out that the answer to my question in the title is almost certainly yes. The post has been quickly altered to reflect that. See below.]

Researchers link high exposure to air pollution to increased risk of premature birth

Each year, the U.S. spends $26.2 billion on costs associated with preterm birth — that’s birth before 37 weeks of pregnancy. Beyond the costs, babies born too early experience immediate and long-term problems, from developmental disabilities to asthma to hearing loss.

Study: Job conditions linked to preterm birth risk among Hispanic workers

“There’s a lot we don’t know about preterm birth and we know even less about the disparities in those births.”

Natural experiment. Look at the birth patterns in a southern hemisphere country that has a decent health system (Australia or New Zealand where Christmas is in the summer). Then look at a place like Singapore right on the equator?

Is pre term birth really increasing? Or is it just that the pediatricians are so good now that these children actually have a shot as surviving? Previously they might have been classed as still-born?