{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031092436974789917, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010924369747899159, 'mean_word_length': 4.896039603960396, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Myelomeningocele and Social Class

Myelomeningocele and Social Class SIR-Nesbit and Ziter (DMCN, 21, 754) suggest that myelomeningocele is related both to the social class in which the mother is raised and to the one into which she marries. They may be right, but their data are not adequate to demonstrate the point. In order to do that they would need to subdivide their data simultaneously by these two variables. Otherwise (since the two variables correlate so highly) a critic might feel free to wonder, say, whether the association with the class of the mother’s father was entirely secondary to that with the class of the mother’s husband. Both Janerich (1972) and Baird (1974) have noted that, in regard to anencephaly rates, the mother’s year of birth seems more important than the child’s. They interpret this cohort effect as indicating the importance of events early in the mother’s life (well before she married). If these authors are correct, one might expect an association between rates of myelomeningocele and mother’s class of origin: this would be independent of any social-class effect based on events subsequent to marriage (and measured by the husband’s social class).