The relationship between residential proximity to extremely low frequency power transmission lines and adverse birth outcomes: Table 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields has been linked to adverse birth outcomes. This study evaluated whether maternal residential proximity to power transmission lines was associated with adverse birth outcomes. METHODS: Live singleton births in the Montréal and Québec census metropolitan areas from 1990 to 2004 were extracted from the Québec birth file (N=707,215). Proximity was defined as residing within 400 m of a transmission line. Generalised estimating equations were used to evaluate associations between residential proximity to transmission lines and preterm birth (PTB), low birth weight (LBW), small-for-gestational age (SGA) birth and infant sex, accounting for maternal age, education, marital status, ethnicity, parity, period of birth, and neighbourhood median household income. RESULTS: There was no association between residential proximity to transmission lines and PTB, LBW and infant sex in unadjusted and adjusted models. A lower likelihood of SGA birth was present for some distance categories (eg, adjusted OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95 for 50-75 m relative to ≥400 m). CONCLUSION: Residential proximity to transmission lines is not associated with adverse births 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".