Optimistic irrationality and overbidding in private value auctions

Bidding one’s value in a second-price, private-value auction is a weakly dominant solution (Vickrey in J Finance 16(1):8–37, 1961), but repeated experimental studies find more overbidding than underbidding. We propose a model of optimistically irrational bidders who understand that there are possible gains and losses associated with higher bids but who may overestimate the additional probability of winning and/or underestimate the potential losses when bidding above value. These bidders may fail to discover the dominant strategy—despite the fact that the dominant strategy only requires rationality from bidders—but respond in a common sense way to out-of-equilibrium outcomes. By varying the monetary consequences of losing money in experimental auctions we observe more overbidding when the cost to losing money is low, and less overbidding when the cost is high. Our findings lend themselves to models in which less than fully rational bidders respond systematically to out-of-equilibrium incentives, and we find that our model better fits the effects of our manipulations than most of the existing models we consider

Prevalence of Esophageal Atresia among 18 International Birth Defects Surveillance Programs

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of esophageal atresia (EA) has been shown to vary across different geographical settings. Investigation of geographical differences may provide an insight into the underlying etiology of EA. METHODS: The study population comprised infants diagnosed with EA during 1998 to 2007 from 18 of the 46 birth defects surveillance programs, members of the International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research. Total prevalence per 10,000 births for EA was defined as the total number of cases in live births, stillbirths, and elective termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly (ETOPFA) divided by the total number of all births in the population. RESULTS: Among the participating programs, a total of 2943 cases of EA were diagnosed with an average prevalence of 2.44 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.352.53) per 10,000 births, ranging between 1.77 and 3.68 per 10,000 births. Of all infants diagnosed with EA, 2761 (93.8%) were live births, 82 (2.8%) stillbirths, 89 (3.0%) ETOPFA, and 11 (0.4%) had unknown outcomes. The majority of cases (2020, 68.6%), had a reported EA with fistula, 749 (25.5%) were without fistula, and 174 (5.9%) were registered with an unspecified code. CONCLUSIONS: On average, EA affected 1 in 4099 births (95% CI, 1 in 39544251 births) with prevalence varying across different geographical settings, but relatively consistent over time and comparable between surveillance programs. Findings suggest that differences in the prevalence observed among programs are likely to be attributable to variability in population ethnic compositions or issues in reporting or registration procedures of EA, rather than a real risk occurrence difference. Birth Defects Research (Part A), 2012. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant use in first trimester pregnancy and risk of specific congenital anomalies: A European register-based study

Evidence of an association between early pregnancy exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and congenital heart defects (CHD) has contributed to recommendations to weigh benefits and risks carefully. The objective of this study was to determine the specificity of association between first trimester exposure to SSRIs and specific CHD and other congenital anomalies (CA) associated with SSRI exposure in the literature (signals). A population-based case-malformed control study was conducted in 12 EUROCAT CA registries covering 2.1 million births 1995-2009 including livebirths, fetal deaths from 20 weeks gestation and terminations of pregnancy for fetal anomaly. Babies/fetuses with specific CHD (n = 12,876) and non-CHD signal CA (n = 13,024), were compared with malformed controls whose diagnosed CA have not been associated with SSRI in the literature (n = 17,083). SSRI exposure in first trimester pregnancy was associated with CHD overall (OR adjusted for registry 1.41, 95% CI 1.07-1.86, fluoxetine adjOR 1.43 95% CI 0.85-2.40, paroxetine adjOR 1.53, 95% CI 0.91-2.58) and with severe CHD (adjOR 1.56, 95% CI 1.02-2.39), particularly Tetralogy of Fallot (adjOR 3.16, 95% CI 1.52-6.58) and Ebstein's anomaly (adjOR 8.23, 95% CI 2.92-23.16). Significant associations with SSRI exposure were also found for ano-rectal atresia/stenosis (adjOR 2.46, 95% CI 1.06-5.68), gastroschisis (adjOR 2.42, 95% CI 1.10-5.29), renal dysplasia (adjOR 3.01, 95% CI 1.61-5.61), and clubfoot (adjOR 2.41, 95% CI 1.59-3.65). These data support a teratogenic effect of SSRIs specific to certain anomalies, but cannot exclude confounding by indication or associated factors

Pregnancy outcome following maternal exposure to Mirtazapine: Preliminary results of a collaborative ENTIS study.

Introduction: Mirtazapine is a noradrenergic and serotonergic antidepressant mainly acting through blockade of presynaptic alpha-2 receptors. Published data on pregnancy outcome after exposure to mirtazapine are scarce. This study addresses the risk associated with exposure to mirtazapine during pregnancy. Patients (or Materials) and Methods: Multicenter (n = 11), observational prospective cohort study comparing pregnancy outcomes after exposure to mirtazapine with 2 matched control groups: exposure to any selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) as a diseasematched control group, and general controls with no exposure to medication known to be teratogenic or to any antidepressant. Data were collected by members of the European Network of Teratology Information Services (ENTIS) during individual risk counseling between 1995 and 2011. Standardized procedures for data collection were used in each center. Results: A total of 357 pregnant women exposed to mirtazapine at any time during pregnancy were included in the study and compared with 357 pregnancies from each control group. The rate of major birth defects between the mirtazapine and the SSRI group did not differ significantly (4.5% vs 4.2%; unadjusted odds ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.5-2.3, P = 0.9). A trend toward a higher rate of birth defects in the mirtazapine group compared with general controls did not reach statistical significance (4.2% vs 1.9%; OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 0.9-6.3; P = 0.08). The crude rate of spontaneous abortions did not differ significantly between the mirtazapine, the SSRI, and the general control groups (9.5% vs 10.4% vs 8.4%; P = 0.67), neither did the rate of deliveries resulting in live births (79.6% vs 84.3% in both control groups; P = 0.15). However, a higher rate of elective pregnancy-termination was observed in the mirtazapine group compared with SSRI and general controls (7.8% vs 3.4% vs 5.6%; P = 0.03). Premature birth (< 37 weeks) (10.6% vs 10.1% vs 7.5%; P = 0.38), gestational age at birth (median, 39 weeks; interquartile range (IQR), 38-40 in all groups; P = 0.29), and birth weight (median, 3320 g; IQR, 2979-3636 vs 3230 g; IQR, 2910-3629 vs 3338 g; IQR, 2967-3650; P = 0.34) did not differ significantly between the groups. Conclusion: This study did not observe a statistically significant difference in the rate of major birth defects between mirtazapine, SSRI-exposed, and nonexposed pregnancies. A slightly higher rate of birth defects was, however, observed in the mirtazapine and SSRI groups compared with the low rate of birth defects in our general controls. Overall, the pregnancy outcome after mirtazapine exposure in this study is very similar to that of the SSRI-exposed control group