Sex ratio at birth is one of the simplest tools for evaluating the quality of population data on sex, but its usefulness as a quality-control indicator depends on knowing how much deviation from the expected value is normal statistical noise versus a genuine data problem. This paper develops that benchmark: using Census 2000 county-level age-zero population data, it models expected sampling variability in the sex ratio as a function of county birth counts, and compares it to what is actually observed, with particular attention to the 22% of U.S. counties with populations under 10,000. Results show that observed dispersion is closely, though not perfectly, explained by binomial sampling variability: the overdispersion factor is near 1 (0.91 to 1.10) for counties with populations of 50,000 and above, but rises to 1.77 for the smallest counties. Applying exact binomial control limits, appropriate given the small birth counts involved, 0.45% of counties fall outside the 99.73% control limits (the exact analogue of ±3 standard deviations), closely matching a separate 2010 replication (0.32%). The result is a practical decision rule—a funnel-plot-style control boundary—that flags counties whose sex ratios warrant closer review, rather than relying on intuition about what “looks extreme.”
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Katherine M. Condon (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: