The International Collaboration on Air Pollution and Pregnancy Outcomes: Initial Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The findings of prior studies of air pollution effects on adverse birth outcomes are difficult to synthesize because of differences in study design. OBJECTIVES: The International Collaboration on Air Pollution and Pregnancy Outcomes was formed to understand how differences in research methods contribute to variations in findings. We initiated a feasibility study to a) assess the ability of geographically diverse research groups to analyze their data sets using a common protocol and b) perform location-specific analyses of air pollution effects on birth weight using a standardized statistical approach. METHODS: Fourteen research groups from nine countries participated. We developed a protocol to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for the association between particulate matter ≤ 10 μm in aerodynamic diameter (PM₁₀) and low birth weight (LBW) among term births, adjusted first for socioeconomic status (SES) and second for additional location-specific variables. RESULTS: Among locations with data for the PM₁₀ analysis, ORs estimating the relative risk of term LBW associated with a 10-μg/m³ increase in average PM₁₀ concentration during pregnancy, adjusted for SES, ranged from 0.63 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.30-1.35] for the Netherlands to 1.15 (95% CI, 0.61-2.18) for Vancouver, with six research groups reporting statistically significant adverse associations. We found evidence of statistically significant heterogeneity in estimated effects among locations. CONCLUSIONS: Variability in PM₁₀-LBW relationships among study locations remained despite use of a common statistical approach. A more detailed meta-analysis and use of more complex protocols for future analysis may uncover reasons for heterogeneity across locations. However, our findings confirm the potential for a diverse group of researchers to analyze their data in a standardized way to improve understanding of air pollution effects on birth outcomes.
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 | 0.174 | 0.200 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".