Evaluation of the Association Between Prenatal Cannabis Use and Risk of Developmental Delay
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: Conflicting results have arisen regarding the association between prenatal cannabis exposure and risk of parent-reported developmental delay in infancy. In certain instances, this literature has become outdated or failed to adjust for confounding variables. The current study aimed to determine if prenatal cannabis exposure was associated with a greater likelihood of risk of parent-reported developmental delay at 12 months of age in a contemporary cohort, while adjusting for common confounding variables. Method: Participants (n = 10,695) were part of the Pregnancy During the COVID-19 Pandemic (PdP) study. A subset of the sample (n = 3,742) provided a parent-report developmental assessment, the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, Third Edition (ASQ-3), of their infant at 12 months old. Sociodemographic differences between participants who reported cannabis use (CU+ group) and those who did not (CU- group) were analyzed. To address potential heterogeneity between CU+ and CU- groups, propensity score weighting was used. G-computations were performed to analyze the association between outcome variables (gestational age, birth weight, and risk of parent-reported developmental delay) and prenatal cannabis exposure. Weighted linear or quasi-binominal logistic regression models were used, with differences of averages and odds ratios reported. Results: s > .05). Conclusion: Prenatal cannabis exposure was associated with increased odds of delay on the communication domain before adjusting for multiple comparisons. No other domains were significantly associated with increased odds of delay. These findings should not be interpreted as suggesting that consuming cannabis products during pregnancy is safe for infant development. Further, the analysis was performed using data from a longitudinal sample that was not specifically created to address this question, but was leveraged to explore these outcomes. Additional studies that are specifically designed to examine these outcomes are needed. Diversity & Inclusion Statement: We worked to ensure that the study questionnaires were prepared in an inclusive way. We worked to ensure race, ethnic, and/or other types of diversity in the recruitment of human participants. The author list of this paper includes contributors from the location and/or community where the research was conducted who participated in the data collection, design, analysis, and/or interpretation of the work. One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as a member of one or more historically underrepresented sexual and/or gender groups in science.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».