Comparison of secondhand smoke exposure measures during pregnancy in the development of a clinical prediction model for small-for-gestational-age among non-smoking Chinese pregnant women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare predictive values of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) by different measures for secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure during pregnancy and to develop and validate a prediction model for SGA using SHS exposure along with sociodemographic and pregnancy factors. METHODS: We compared the predictability of different measures of SHS exposure during pregnancy for SGA among 545 Chinese pregnant women, and then used the optimal SHS measure along with other clinically available factors to develop and validate a prediction model for SGA. We fit logistic regression models to predict SGA by single measures of SHS exposure (self-report, serum cotinine and CYP2A6*4) and different combinations (self-report+cotinine, cotinine+CYP2A6*4, self-report+CYP2A6*4 and self-report+cotinine+CYP2A6*4). RESULTS: We found that self-reported SHS exposure alone predicted SGA (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve or area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC), 0.578) better than the other two single measures (cotinine, 0.547; CYP2A6*4, 0.529) or as accurately as combined SHS measures (0.545-0.584). The final prediction model that contained self-reported SHS exposure, prepregnancy body mass index, gestational weight gain velocity during the second and third trimesters, gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension and the third-trimester biparietal diameter Z-score could predict SGA fairly accurately (AUROC, 0.698). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported SHS exposure at peribirth performs better in predicting SGA than a single measure of serum cotinine at the same time, although repeated biochemical cotinine assessments throughout pregnancy may be optimal. Our simple prediction model is fairly accurate and can be potentially used in routine prenatal care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".