Reproductive History and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Commercial Flight Crew and Air Traffic Control Officers in the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine reproductive outcomes among flight crew. METHODS: Ten thousand two hundred five flight crew members and a control group of 2118 air traffic control officers completed a questionnaire in 2001 to 2004, United Kingdom. RESULTS: Similar proportions of flight crew and air traffic control officers reported having ever had difficulties in conceiving a baby. Risks of miscarriages and congenital malformations among pregnancies fathered by men who did not differ by occupation, but stillbirth risk was higher among flight crew (odds ratio = 2.85; 95% CI = 1.30-6.23). Among pregnancies reported by women, risks of miscarriage and stillbirth did not differ by occupation but risk of congenital malformations was higher among flight crew (odds ratio = 2.37; 95% CI = 0.43-13.06). CONCLUSIONS: Flight crew-related exposures were not associated with adverse reproductive outcomes except for possible links, based on small numbers, between paternal exposure and stillbirths and maternal exposure and congenital malformations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".