Talk:Birth weight

message: "defined as a fetus that weighs above 4000 grams (8 lb 13 oz) or 4500 grams (9 lb 15 oz) regardless of gestational age".  Don't these two figures contradict each other?  Is it 4000 grams or 4500?  Or am I misreading?  Can someone fix or clarify? -anon 22:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if it's not clear.  It depends on who is defining it as some say it's over 4000 grams and some say over 4500.  If I remember correctly it's partially down to the U.K./U.S./other divide.  violet/riga (t) 23:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come now my sister was 11 pounds at birth and perfectly normal. She wasn't even as tall as I was and I weighed 2 pounds less at 23 inches.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 4000 or 4500?

message: "The incidence of birth weight being outside of the AGA is influenced by the parents in numerous ways, including:
    * Genetics
    * The health of the mother, particularly during the pregnancy
    * Environmental factors"
Does the sex of the baby not play any part? What about when there are twins, don't they result in lower birth weights? 
Just being pedantic..... Poweroid 20:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sex of baby and weight

message: I just noticed that small for gestational age redirects here. This article does not deal with the adverse birth outcome known as IUGR, only SGA, and yet it externally links to IUGR. There are several reasons why it might be sensible to create a separate page for these birth outcomes, instead of including them all under birth weight: e.g. low birth weight, term low birth weight, intra uterine growth retardation, small for gestational age, fetal growth restriction etc. (note that both fetal growth restriction and low birth weight also redirect to birth weight at present)
Several external links dealing with IUGR (intra uterine growth retardation) are included for this article, which is ostensibly dealing with SGA. While some clinicians and researchers may use these terms interchangeably (partly because there is no accepted clinical definition for IUGR), this situation allows for considerable misclassification and general confusion. The reason for this is that a neonate can be SGA without necessarily being IUGR i.e. it is just small relative to its growth potential, rather than being pathologically small. Reciprocally, an IUGR neonate does not necessarily end up as SGA - if it already had a high growth potential (say it was likely to be a very large baby because of its parents), but was does not reach this due to IUGR, it might still end up as not being SGA (which is referenced against centiles based on an entire population). There are other problems that arise due to the use of the same statistical references for the use of both IUGR and SGA classifications, but I won't go into these here. I would suggest removing the external references to IUGR, renaming those that actually deal with SGA appropriately, and/or finding specific SGA references. And that is if the page is remain without references to IUGR. If the page is going to deal with all the adverse birth outcomes I mention in my first comment (above) - and not deal with these in separate articles - I will gladly make a start.
Any thoughts? Jimjamjak (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect and external links to IUGR 

message: What is the source for this? It doesn't appear to tie up with the charts used by ultrasonographers in the UK...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.154.1 (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  SGA/LGA Chart 

message: Does anyone outside physics talk of birth "mass" instead of "weight?"
I understand the pedantic reason for this, but precision of language is not relevant in this case, and surely then the common usage of "birth weight" should be adopted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waster (talk • contribs) 18:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. This "birth mass" thing is just an attempt to change existing language from a pseudo-scientific point of view. Zigomer trubahin (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To a scientist I'm sure that the misunderstanding of mass/weight is frustrating but the correct term here is "birth weight".  Hopefully the clarification I'm put at the start will help. violet/riga (t) 11:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass? 

message: Birth weight and gestational age
Classifications
*Large for gestational age: Weight is above the 90th percentile at gestational age
*Macrosomia: Weight is above a defined limit at any gestational age
*Appropriate for gestational age: Normal birth weight
*Small for gestational age: Weight is below the 10th percentile at gestational age
*Low birth weight: Weight is below a defined limit at any gestational age
I think the template at right is a bit sub-optimal to use in this article, and it's contents are better found integrated in the article for several reasons:
*to be more specific for the topic of birth weight. 
*to be easier to edit
I've explained the relation between birth weight, gestational age and growth rate in the article, and added a diagram of relations, so I think the template is rather redundant now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The PNG image used in the template is now an SVG image. Can now be easily edited or translated. – JBarta (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous template 

message: Writing a whole article about birth weight without mentioning what a normal birth weight is anywhere, good job guys! --85.151.204.175 (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been resolved. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe mentioning a normal weight range somewhere? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Birth weight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/uvahealth/peds_hrpregnant/iugr.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050312045606/http://www.islamonline.net:80/iol-english/dowalia/health-16-2-2000/health3.asp to http://www.islamonline.net/iol-english/dowalia/health-16-2-2000/health3.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As if this writing, the page has data for babies of “European descent,” a euphemism for “white,” which makes little sense considering how many black and East Asian people I know of European descent - their families have been in Europe for generations before moving to the US. 
Additionally, the omission of black and native peoples (among others), sends a *strange* signal - to say the least. 
Given dubious scientific evidence for *race,* the page should give information on average weights and/or mass (but most viewers are looking for weight) for males and females born within the 50 states and the territories. To list differences or stats by state territory makes sense, but pretending race/origin matters before location of birth is a little silly. refractonsofthedawn 02:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  European, South Asian and Chinese only? 

message: Hello! 
This is my first time editing a wikipedia article, and I am working on it as part of a graduate school course. My partner and I are thinking of expanding the following sections: 
* more information regarding determinants
* abnormalities
* effects on adult life
* a new section on prevention
Are there any other specific areas that previous authors/reviewers would like us to expand on? 
Thanks! Ecostello1213 (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of Article-Including Public Health Info 

message: After reviewing the article, I have a few suggestions that may add to the content. There seems to be information lacking on the quality of neonatal care. I think that reviewing the literature and adding content on this subject could add to the overall content of birth weight. Also, there is a color map that shows the world, but I do not feel that there is enough explanation on what it is showing. I also feel that a discussion on data surrounding worldwide birth weights and the differences between developed and developing countries. I think that it is great that there is the list of determinants and abnormalities, but I wish there was more detail on each of these. Maybe they could make good subheadings? These are just some suggestions for a place to start.
Thanks for your insights! I agree that the quality of neonatal care section could use some additional work. I will look into the color map and see if I can find some more information on it. Throughout my research, I noticed some interesting ideas along the lines of developed vs. developing countries. As far as the determinants and abnormalities,  we will be expanding those sections! Thank you again for your suggestions. Ecostello1213 (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review for Public Health Course