Platt et al. Respond to the Two Invited Commentaries

Robert W. Platt1,2 , K. S. Joseph3, Cande V. Ananth4, Justin Grondines1, Michal Abrahamowicz2 and Michael S. Kramer1,2

1 Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
2 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
3 Perinatal Epidemiology Research Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
4 Section of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ.

Received for publication May 17, 2004; accepted for publication May 18, 2004.

We are delighted that our proposed alternative approach to analyzing fetal and infant mortality (1) has stirred up such vigorous and thoughtful discussion (2, 3). Our approach is based on alternative denominators (i.e., fetuses at risk), which, in our view, has a sound biologic and clinical underpinning. We explicitly model the risk of death for the fetus or infant at specific times postconception. This is a logical extension and operationalization of previous work (46), in which we proposed incidence-based measures of birth, growth restriction, and death (including a model of "obstetric mortality").

We like Wilcox and Weinberg’s (2) suggestion that time since conception and time since birth should be included as separate time axes in the same survival model. The hazard due to livebirth is indeed highest in the first few minutes and hours of life and declines sharply thereafter, but it differs substantially depending on gestational age. While our model does not account for this sharp rise and fall in the hazard shortly after a live preterm birth, that is certainly worth considering in future refinements and extensions. Using time since birth as a continuous covariate with a declining hazard ratio as time increases is one potential approach. However, modeling this covariate would require careful attention to the assumptions of the underlying Cox model.

Wilcox and Weinberg suggest that perinatal epidemiologists have been "spoiled" by the easy availability of vital statistics data and that causal pathways should be examined much more closely. They bring up a specific example of a risk factor for which preterm delivery is on the causal path between the risk factor and mortality. However, our model requires no explicit adjustment for whether the child has been born. The effect of a factor that operates through preterm delivery is then estimated without bias. On the other hand, models that condition on gestational age (either explicitly or through birth weight) can address the causal effect of only those factors that operate independently of gestational age.

We agree with Klebanoff and Schoendorf (3) that removing the crossing of perinatal mortality curves is not the primary goal of statistical modeling of fetal and infant mortality. Rather, the goal is to provide a statistically sensible model that reflects the underlying biology. The fetuses-at-risk approach makes it clear that observed births at preterm gestational ages represent different proportions of the total number of conceptions for, for example, Blacks versus Whites. To understand the biology of the crossover, it is important first to understand how the source population (conceptions) develops into the observed population of births at specific gestational ages.

We thank Drs. Wilcox, Weinberg, Klebanoff, and Schoendorf for their careful and insightful comments, which have helped clarify and illustrate the complexity of appropriate measurement of risk of fetal and infant mortality. We hope that continuing discussion and research will lead to a better understanding of the determinants of birth and of death during fetal life and infancy.


    NOTES
 
Reprint requests to Dr. Robert W. Platt, Department of Pediatrics, Montreal Children’s Hospital Research Institute, McGill University, 2300 Tupper Street, Montreal, Quebec, H3H 1PE Canada (e-mail: robert.platt{at}mcgill.ca). Back


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Platt RW, Joseph KS, Ananth CV, et al. A proportional hazards model with time-dependent covariates and time-varying effects for analysis of fetal and infant death. Am J Epidemiol 2004;160:199–206.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Wilcox AJ, Weinberg CR. Invited commentary: analysis of gestational-age-specific mortality—on what biologic foundations? Am J Epidemiol 2004;160:213–14.[Free Full Text]
  3. Klebanoff MA, Schoendorf KC. Invited commentary: what’s so bad about curves crossing anyway? Am J Epidemiol 2004;160:211–12.[Free Full Text]
  4. Joseph KS, Liu S, Demissie K, et al. A parsimonious explanation for intersecting perinatal mortality curves: understanding the effects of plurality and of parity. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2003;3:3.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Joseph KS, Demissie K, Platt RW, et al. A parsimonious explanation for intersecting perinatal mortality curves: understanding the effects of race and of maternal smoking. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2004;4:7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Joseph KS. Incidence-based measures of birth, growth-restriction and death can free perinatal epidemiology from erroneous concepts of risk. J Clin Epidemiol (in press).

Related articles in Am. J. Epidemiol.:

A Proportional Hazards Model with Time-dependent Covariates and Time-varying Effects for Analysis of Fetal and Infant Death
Robert W. Platt, K. S. Joseph, Cande V. Ananth, Justin Grondines, Michal Abrahamowicz, and Michael S. Kramer
Am. J. Epidemiol. 2004 160: 199-206. [Abstract] [FREE Full Text]  

On the Definition of Gestational-Age-specific Mortality
Yin-Bun Cheung
Am. J. Epidemiol. 2004 160: 207-210. [Abstract] [FREE Full Text]  

Invited Commentary: What’s So Bad about Curves Crossing Anyway?
Mark A. Klebanoff and Kenneth C. Schoendorf
Am. J. Epidemiol. 2004 160: 211-212. [Extract] [FREE Full Text]  

Invited Commentary: Analysis of Gestational-Age-specific Mortality—On What Biologic Foundations?
Allen J. Wilcox and Clarice R. Weinberg
Am. J. Epidemiol. 2004 160: 213-214. [Extract] [FREE Full Text]  




This Article
Extract
FREE Full Text (PDF)
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Related articles in Am. J. Epidemiol.
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Disclaimer
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Platt, R. W.
Articles by Kramer, M. S.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Platt, R. W.
Articles by Kramer, M. S.